<Vttt&IR.--y 


^ 


CL 


«r 


3E5  h> 


«=5 


^ 


ft 

O 

o 


^ 

^ 
% 

I 


«P 


< 


E 
to 


it 


C 


Mode  and  Subjects  of  Baptijm 

*  EXAMINED, 


1M 


SEVEN  SERMONS. 

f0    WHICH    IS    ADDED, 

A  Brief  Hiftory  of  the  Baptifts. 


BY  DANIEL  MERRILL,  A.  M. 

ASTOR    Of    THE    CHURCH    OF    CHRIST    IN    S£DCWl«. 


our.  law  judge  any  man  before  it  hear  him,'  and  k^  wlwt  be 

|h?      NlCODKMliS.  '"IN    UK   J'' 

•ver  he  he  of  you  that  forfake*  not  all  that  he  faarii,  he  cannot 
f  chic i pie.  J 


■fbofoev 

be  my  difciple 


- — fe^©« — 

SECOiWD  EDITION. 

— »©<-« — 


Bofton  : 
Printed  and  fold  by- Manning  S?  Loring>  No.  2,  Cornhill. 


1805. 


TO  THE  R£i%DE'lC^ 


Fellow  Traveller  to  Etertiit\>s 

Y/f 
OU  and  I  are  the  offspring  of  God. 
The  period  of  our  return  to  him  fwiftly 
approaches.  Then  the  motive  I  have  had 
in  writing,  and  which  you  lhall  have  had  in 
reading,  will  both  be  known.  How,  and 
how  far  the  following  pages  will  affect  my 
prefent  and  future  life,  is  with  the  Lord. 
Hdw  far  they  fhall  affect  thine,  is  alfo  with 
Him.  One  thing  is  certain  :  the  truth  of 
what  I  have  written  will  be  foon  known. 
You  are  willing  to  know  it  now,  provided 
you  know  the  value  of  the  gofpel,  and  poffefs 
an  heart  humbled  by  its  doctrines. 

Reader,  be  not  offended  at  what  I  have 
written,  till  you  be  fure  it  is  falfe.  Do 
thyfelf  no  harm.  Read,  confider,  compare 
every  part,  and  the  whole,  with  divine  truth, 
in  fuch  a  manner  and  fpirit,  as  mall  yield 
thee  a  pleafing  reflection  in  the  world  to 
come. 


'!£  th4fc,fitbjc&,  as  here  fc^efented,  b&%£nue, 
•it  is'  a  ferioils  trutn.       If  an  error,  it  is  a 
lerious  one.      It  nearly  concerns  .the  king- 
dom of  Emmanuel,  to  whofe  pleafure  and 
mercy  the  whole  is  cheerfully  refigned, 

By,  Reader, 

Thy  Servant, 

For  Jefus'  fake, 

The  AUTHOR. 

.Sen r. wick,  ) 
04*.  27,  »3o4.  S 


The  Mode  and  SubjkSls  <j 


m. 


SERMO% 


MATTHEW  xxviii.  19,  £ 

Go  j^,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghojl  ;  teach- 
ing them  to  obferve  all  things  <whatfoever  I  have  com  manded 
you  :  And,  lo,  I  am  ivith  you  alivay,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
'world.     Amen. 

IT  hath  pleafed  the  Father  of  Mercies  to  beftow  on  fallen 
man  a  revelation  from  heaven.  In  it  is  contained  the 
fcheme  of  grace,  which  brings  life  and  immortality  to  light. 
It  fhows  the  way  by' which  to  efcape  the  wrath  to  come,  and 
to  find  the  favour  of  God.  All  fcripture  is  given  by  his  iri- 
fpiration,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  cor- 
rection, for  inftruction  in  righteoufnefs  ;  that  the  man  of 
God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furniflied  unto  all  good 
works. 

Till  the  human  heart  be  humbled,  in  meafure,  man  feels 
not  his  need  of  divine  teaching  ;  nor  will  he  make  the  fcrip- 
tures  the  man  of  his  counfel.  But,  my  brethren,  and  peo- 
ple, it  is  doubtlefs  the  cafe,  that  many  of  you  pclfefs  a  wil- 
lingnefs  to  have  your  principles  and  practice  fquared  by 
the  word  and  teftimony  of  Jefus  Chrift.  My  text  contains 
fome  of  the  laft  words  of  our  great  High-Prieft.  It  is  the 
general  orders  which  he  gave  his  firft  apoftles,  and  left  for 
the  inftruction,  practice  and  comfort  of  all  their  fucceffors,  to 
the  end  of  the  world.  In  the  verfe  which  precedes  my  text, 
Chrift  informs  us,  that  all  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth  is 
given  unto  him.  His  words,  therefore,  are  clothed  with 
authority.  May  we  hear,  and  fear,  and  be  obedient. 
Where  the  word  of  a  king  is,  there  is  power  ;  and  who  may 
fay  unto  the  King  of  Zion,  What  doft  thou? 
A2 


6  The  Mode  and  Subjccls  [Serm.  L 

So  far  as  we  be  Chriftians,  all  that  is  neceflary  to  enforce 
obedience  is,  to  know  what  Chrift  would  have  us  to  do. 
Perhaps  not  a  paflage  in  all  the  oracles  of  truth  contains 
more  extenfive  inftruction  than  do  the  words  of  my  text. 
The  commands  are  exceedingly  broad  ;.  the  Baptifmal  Infti- 
tution  comprehends  all  obedient  difciples  ;  and  the  comfort- 
ing promile  is  durable  as  the  world. 

In  my  text,  Chrift  Jems,  the  Head  of  the  church  and 
Lord  of  all,  conllituted  his  prefent  and  fucceeding  difciples 
to- be  apoftles  unto  all  nations.  It  contains  their  commif- 
fion,  and  general  and  particular  orders.  In  it  they  are 
directed 

I.  To  go  and  difciple  all  nations. 

II.  To  baptize  them,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  o£ 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghoft. 

III.  He  directs  thefe  newly  conftituted  apoftles,  and  all 
their  fucceffors,  to  teach  their  baptized  difciples  to  obferve 
all  things  whatfoever  he  bad  given  in  commandment. 

Lajlly.  For  their  encouragement  and  comfort,  he  adds* 
And,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,.even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world.     Amen. 

I  fuppofe  it  will  be  expedient,  and  with  me  it  is  an  indif- 
penikble  duty,  that  I  lay  each  of  thefe  propofitions  as  fairly 
and  as  fully  before  you  as  I  can.  But  1  fhall  not  obferve 
the  order  ia  which  they  lie  in  my  textj  which  is  as  I  have 
juft  ftated  them.  For  I  have  many  things  to  fay  unto  you, 
in  agreement  with  my  text,  but  fear  that  you  are  not,  all 
of  you,  able  to  bear  them  now.  We  fhall  therefore  begin 
#ith  the 

II.  Which  contains  Chrift's  command  to  baptize,  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghoft, 
thofe  who  fhall  be  difcipled  of  all  nations. 

Nor  do  I  purpofe  to  call  your  attention,  at  this  time,  to 
the  whole  which  is  implied  in  this  proportion.  But  what 
I  purpofe  is,  to  define  a  few  words  which  appertain  to  the 
ordinance,  and  then  collect  the  fcripture  account  of  baptifm, 
with  fome  other  texts,  which  may  throw  light  upon  the 
fubject.  Afterwards,  in  difcourfes  which  may  follow,  I 
may  produce  evidence,  that  my  definition  of  baptifm  is  ac- 
curate and  juft  ;  and  fhow  how  the  apoftles  and  primitive 
Chriftians  underftood  this  matter,  and  how  they  practifed. 
When  this  is  done,  it  will  be  cafily  feen,.  what  is  the  out- 


Serm.  L]  of  Baptifm.  7 

ward  and  viiible  part  of  baptifm ;  and  then  the  purport, 
end  and  defign  of  the  inftitution  may  call  for  fome  attention. 

Before  I  proceed  to  open,  illuftrate  and  confirm  theie 
particulars,  I  have  feveral  things  xq  fay  unto  you.  For  I 
wifh  you  to  attend  to  the  fubjecl  without  partiality  and  with- 
out hypocrify.  I  pray  God  to  remove  darknefs  and  all  pre- 
judice from  your  minds,  that  you  may,  indeed,  come  to  the 
law  and  to  the  teftimony  of  Jefus  Chrift  in  this  matter. 

You  will  confider  me  as  under  the  ftrongeft  worldly  in- 
ducements to  continue  to  believe  and  praclife  as  I  have 
heretofore  done  ;  for  fhould  I,  after  mature  confideration, 
be  conftrained  to  believe  and  praclife  differently,  you  will 
be  releafed  from  all  legal  obligations  to  afford  me  any  far- 
ther fupport ;  my  relations  will,  the  moft  of  them,  proba- 
bly be  greatly  (hocked,  and  difpleafed,  at  the  report;  many, 
whom  I  highly  value  as  Christians,  and  numbers  of  them 
zealous  preachers  of  the  gofpel,  will,  it  may  be,  confider  me 
as  loft,  and  worfc  than  loft,  to  the  church  and  world :  and, 
tbefides  this,  multitudes  will,  no  doubt,  fay  all  manner  of 
evil  againft  me.  All  this  being  true,  with  a  thoufand  other 
connected  fmaller  evils,  and  nothing  of  a  worldly  nature  in 
profpecl,  fave  what  is  contained  in  the  promife  of  Jefus 
Chrift,  you  cannot  but  conclude  that  I  fhall  proceed  no 
farther  in  this  matter  than  I  am  obliged  to,  in  following  the 
Lamb  of  God  whitherfoever  he  goeth. 

Having  faid  thus  much  with  refpect  to  myfelf,  I  will  ftill 
add,  that,  fhould  a  change  in  my  belief  and  practice,  reflect- 
ing the  fubjecl  on  hand,  bring  me  to  a  more  full  belief  and 
practice  of  the  truth,  I  fhall,  on  the  whole,  be  a  gainer. 
But,  fhould  a  change  take  place,  and  I  be  called  to  fuftain 
all  the  evils  which  I  may  calculate  upon,  and  after  all  be. 
plunged  myfelf  into  a  hurtful  and  bewildering  error,  furely 
all  the  meek  and  lowly  in  heart  would  rather  commiferate 
than  revile  me. 

Another  thing  I  would  mention  to  you,  fo  that  the  fub- 
jecl may,  if  it  poffibly  can,  meet  your  minds  without  preju- 
dice. You  ought  not  to  fix  your  judgments,  nor  found  your, 
belief,  upon,  the  arguments  or  confeffions  of  great  and  good 
men,  any  farther  than  fuch  arguments  and  confeffions  are 
conformed  with  the  fcriptures  of  truth.  Should  we  hear- 
ken to  what  the  greateft  and  beft  of  men  have  confeffed  and 
affirmed  of  the  fubjecl  which,  we  are  about  to  coidider,  and 


8  The  Mode  and  Subjcfls  [Serm.  I. 

,  have  our  belief  and  practice  correfponding  with  what  they 
/  have  written,  the  matter  would,  mod  evidently,  go  againit 
what  we  have,  in  time  paft,  both  believed  and  pradifed. 
For  they  have  very  generally,  or  very  many  of  them,  if  not 
all  of  them,  confeifed,  or  affirmed,  however  their  practice  may 
have  been,  that  immerfion  was  the  mode  pradrifed  by  the 
apoftles  and  primitive  church.  This  I  purpofe  to  prove  to 
you  in  its  proper  place. 

What  I  have  more  to  add,  before  I  proceed  to  the  main 
bufmefs,  is,  to  ftate  a  few  plain  truths. 

1.  Baptifm  is  a  pofitive  inftitution,  about  which  we  can 
know  nothing,  as  to  its  being  a  Chriftian  ordinance,  but  from 
what  Chrift,  and  thofe  infpired  by  his  Spiric,  have  taught 
us. 

2.  All  which  we  are  required  to  believe  and  practife, 
with  refpedt  to  the  Chriftian  ordinance  of  baptifm,  is  declared 
to  us  by  Jefus  Chrift  and  his  forerunner  and  apoftles. 

3.  When  Jefus  Chrift  hrft  inftituted  the  oidinance  of 
baptifm,  he,  no  doubt,  delivered  his  mind  £o  clearly  and 
fully  upon  the  fubjecl:,  that  his  immediate  difciples  and 
apoftles  underftood  and  practiied  as  he  would  have  them. 

4.  Every  thing  which  hath,  by  the  precepts  and  com- 
mandments of  men,  been  added  fince,  is  diftinct  from  the 
ordinance,  and  makes  no  part  of  it. 

5.  No  man,  or  body  of  men,  have  any  more  authority  to 
add  to  this  ordinance,  or  to  diminiih  from  it,  than  they  have 
to  inftitute  a  new  one  and  call  it  Chrift's. 

6.  Whenever,  and  wherever,  this  ordinance  is  fo  chang- 
ed, as  to  lofe  the  intent  of  the  Inftitutor,  then  and  theie 
the  ordinance  is  loft,  and  becomes  no  Chriftian  ordinance 
at  all. 

Having  laid  thefe  preparatory  obfervations,  remarks  and 
plain  truths  before  you,  we  proceed  to  confider  the  fubjecl 
now  on  hand,  which  is — 

Chrift's  command  to  baptize,  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  thofe  who  fhall  be 
difcipled  of  all  nations. 

What  is  propofed  for  the  prefent  difcourfe  is — 

1.  To  define  a  few  words  which  appertain  to  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptifm.     Then — 

2.  To  collect  the  fcripture  account  of  baptifm,  together 
with  fome  other  texts,  which  may  throw  light  upon  the  fub- 
je&.    Afterwards,  ia  fome  following  difcourfes,  we  may— 


Serin.  I.]  of  Baptifm.  9 

3.  Produce  evidence,  that  my  definition  of  baptifm  is 
accurate  and  juft.     Then  fhow — 

4.  How  the  apoflles  and  primitive  church  underflood 
this  matter,  and  how  they  pra&ifed.  When  this  is  done,  it 
will  be  ealily  feen — 

5.  What  is  the  outward  and  vifible  part  of  Chriftian 
baptifm.     Then — 

LafJy.  The  purport,  end  and  defign  of  the  baptifmal 
inititution  may  call  for  our  attention. 

Agreeably  to  what  is  propofed,  we  are — 

i.  To  define  a  few  words  which  appertain  to  the  ordi- 
nance  of  baptifm.     Thefe  are — 

1 .  Baptiflerion,  Greek  ;  baptijlerium  and  lavacrum,  Latin  ; 
a  font,  a  bath,  a  warning  place,  a  veflel  to  wafh  the  body 
in ;  Englifh. 

2.  Baptifma  and  baptlfmos,  Greek  ;  Baptifma  and  Lotion 
alfo,  ablutia  faura,  Latin ;  baptifm,  warning,  facred,  ceremo- 
nial wafhing ;  Englifh. 

3.  Baptjftes,  Greek  ;  baptifta,  Latin  j  one  who  dips,  a 
baptift  ;  Englifh. 

4.  Baptizo,  Greek  ;  baptizo,  mergo,  lavo,  Latin  ;  to  bap- 
tize, to  dip  all  over,  to  wafh  ;  Englifh. 

5.  Lauo,  Greek ;  lavo,  Latin ;  to  wafh,  to  rinfe,  to 
bathe;  Englifh.  * 

2.  We  are  to  collect  the  fcripture  account  of  baptifm,  to- 
gether with  fome  other  texts  which  may  throw  light  upon 
the  fubjecl. 

We  will  begin  with  thofe  pafTages  which  fpeak  of  the  bap- 
tifm of  John. 

1.  Matth.  iii.  5,  6,  7.  Then  went  out  to  him  Jerufalem, 
and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan,  and 
were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  confeiling  their  fins.  But 
when  he  faw  many  of  the  Pharifees  and  Sadducees  come  to 
his  baptifm,  he  faid  unto  them,  O  generation  of  vipers,  &c. 

2.  Verfe  11.  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  unto  re- 
pentance, Sic. 

3.  Verfes  13,  14,  15,  1 6.  Then  cometh  Jefus  from 
Galilee  to  Jordan,  unto  John,  to  be  baptized  of  him  :  but 
John  fo,  bade  him,  faying,  I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of 
thee,  and,  corned  thou  to  me  ?  And  Jefus  anfwering,  faid 
unto  him,  Suffer  it  to  be  fo  now,  for  thus  it  becometh  us  to 
fulfil  all  righteoufnefs  :  then  he  fuffered  him.  And  Jefus, 
when  he  was  baptized,  went  up  ftraightway  out  of  the  water. 


i  o  The  Mode  and  Subjefts  [Serm.  I. 

4^  Matth.  xxi.  25,  26,  27.  Thebaptifm  of  John,  whence 
was  it,  from  heaven,  or  of  men?  And  they  reafoned  with 
themfelves,  faying,  If  we  (hould  fay,  From  heaven,  he  will 
fay  unto  us,  Why  did  ye  not  then  believe  him  ?  But,  if  we 
fhall  fay  of  men,  we  fear  the  people,  for  all  hold  John  as  a 
prophet.  And  they  anfwered  Jefus  and  faid,  We  cannot 
t«ll,«&c. 

5.  Mark  i.  4,  5.  John  did  baptize  in  the  wildernefs, 
and  preach  the  baptifm  of  repentance  for  the  remiffion  of 
fins.  And  there  went  out  unto  him  all  the  land  of  Judea, 
and -they  of  Jerufalem,  and  were  all  baptized  of  him  in  the 
river  of  Jordan,  confefling  their  fins. 

6.  Verfes  8,  9,  10.  I  indeed  have  baptized  you  with 
water — And  it  came  to  pafs  in  thofe  days,  that  Jefus  came 
from  Nazareth  of  Galilee,  and  was  baptized  of  John  in  Jor- 
dan, and  ftraightway  coming  up  out  of  the  water,  &c 

7.  Mark  xi.  30.  The  baptifm  of  John,  was  it  from 
heaven,  or  of  men  ? 

8.  Luke  iii.  3.  And  he  came  into  all  the  country  about 
Jordan,  preaching  the  baptifm  of  repentance  for  the  remif- 
fion of  fins. 

9.  Verfes  7,  8.  Then  faid  he  to  the  multitude  that 
came  forth  to  be  baptized  of  him,  O  generation  of  vipers 
■     ■        bring  forth  therefore  fruits  meet  for  repentance. 

10.  Verfe  12.     Then  came  alfo  publicans  to  be  baptized. 

1 1.  Verfe  16.     I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water. 

12.  Verfe  21.  Now  when  all  the  people  were  baptized, 
it  came  to  pafs  that  Jefus  alfo,  being  baptized,  &c. 

13.  Luke  vii.  29,  30.  And  all  the  people  that  heard 
him,  and  the  publicans,  juftified  God,  bemg  baptized  with 
the  baptifm  of  John.  But  the  Pharifees  and  lawyers  reject- 
ed the  counfel  of  God  againtl  themfelves,  being  not  baptiz- 
ed of  him. 

14.  Luke  xx.  4.  The  baptifm  of  John,  was  it  from 
heaven,  or  of  men  ? 

15.  John  i.  25,  26.  Why  baptized  thou,  then,  if  thou 
be  not  that  Chrift,  nor  Elias,  neither  that  prophet  ?  John  an- 
fwered them,  faying,  I  baptize  with  water. 

16.  Verfe  28.  ""  Beyond  Jordan,  where  John  was  bap- 
tizing. 

17.  Verfe  3c.  That  he  mould  be  made  raanifeft  to 
Ifrad,  therefore  am  I  come  baptizing  with  water. 


Serm.  I.]  of  Baptifm,  1 1 

1 8.  Verfe  33.     He  that  fent  me  to  baptize  with  water. 

19.  John  iii.  23.  And  John  alfo  was  baptizing  in  Enon, 
near  to  Salim,  becaufe  there  was  much  water  there  ;  and 
they  came  and  were  baptized. 

20.  John  iv.  1.  The  Pharifees  had  heard  that  Jefus 
made  and  baptized  more  difciples  than  John. 

21.  John  x.  40.  Beyond  Jordan,  into  the  place  where 
John  at  firft  baptized. 

22.  Ad.s  i.  5.     John  truly  baptized  with  water. 

23.  Verfe  22.     Beginning  from  the  baptifm  of  John. 

24.  Acts  x.  37.     After  the  baptifm  which  John  preached. 

25.  A8s  xi.  16.     John  indeed  baptized  with  water. 

26.  A8s  xiii.  24.  When  John  had  firft  preached,  be- 
fore his  coming,  the  baptifm  of  repentance  to  all  the  people. 

27.  Alls  xviii.  25.  He  (Apollos)  fpake  and  taught, 
diligently,  the  things  of  the  Lord,  knowing  only  the  bap- 
tifm of  John. 

28.  Ads  xix.  3,  4.  Unto  what  then  were  ye  baptized  ? 
And  they  faid,  Unto  John's  baptifm.  Then  faid  Paul, 
John  verily  baptized  with  the  baptifm  of  repentance,  faying 
unto  the  people,  that  they  fhould  believe  on  him  which 
fhould  come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Chrift  Jefus. 

We  will  next  turn  our  attention  to  thofe  texts  which  men- 
tion Chrift's  baptifm. 

1.  Matth.  xxviii.  19.  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all 
nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghoft. 

2.  Mark  xvi.  15,  16.  And  he  faid  unto  them,  Go  ye 
into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gofpel  to  every  creature : 
he  that  belie veth,  and  is  baptized,  mall  be  faved. 

3.  John  iii.  5.  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water,  and  of 
the  Spirit,  &c. 

4.  Verfe  22.  After  thefe  things  came  Jefus  and  his  dif- 
ciples into  the  land  of  Judea,  and  there  tarried  with  them 
and  baptized. 

5.  Verfe  26.  Behold  the  fame  baptifceth,  and  all  men 
come  to  him. 

6.  John  iv.  1,  2.  When  therefore  tb?  Lord  knew  how 
the  Pharifees  had  heard  that  Jefus  made  and  baptized  more 
difciples  than  John,  (though  Jefus  himfelf  baptized  not,  but 
his  difciples.) 

7.  A8s  iii.  38.  Then  Peter  faid  unto  them,  Repent, 
an4De  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jefus 


12  The  Mode  and  Subjefls  [Serm.  I. 

Chrift,  for  the  remiftlon  of  fins,  and  ye  (hall  receive  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghoft. 

8.  Acts  ii.  41.  Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word 
were  baptized. 

9.  Acts  viii.  12,  13.  But  when  they  believed  Philip 
preaching  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God  and 
the  name  of  Jefus  Chrift,  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and 
women.  Then  Simon  himfelf  believed  alfo,  and  when  he 
was  baptized,  &c. 

10.  Atls  viii.  16.  Only  they  wrere  baptized  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jefus. 

1 1.  Verfes  36,  37,  38,  39.  And  as  they  Vent  on  their 
way,  they  came  unto  a  certain  water ;  and  the  eunuch  faid, 
See,  here  is  water,  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  ? 
And  Philip  faid,  If  thou  believeft  with  all  thine  heart,  thou 
mayeft.  And  he  faid,  I  believe  that  Jefus  Chrift  is  the  Son 
of  God.  And  he  commanded  the  chariot  to  ftand  (till. 
And  they  went  down  both  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and 
the  eunuch,  and  he  baptized  him.  And  when  they  were 
come  up  out  of  the  water,  &c. 

12.  Atls  ix.  18.  And  he  (Saul)  arofe,  and  was  baptiz- 
ed. 

13.  Atls  x.  47,  48.  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that 
thefe  fhould  not  be  baptized,  which  have  received  the  Holy 
Ghoft  as  well  as  we  ?  And  he  commanded  them  to  be  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  die  Lord. 

14.  Atls  xvi.  15.  And  when  (he  (Lydia)  was  baptiz- 
ed, and  her  houfehold. 

15.  Verfe  33.  And  was  baptized,  he  (the  jailor)  and 
all  his,  ftraightway. 

16.  Ads  xviii.  8.  Anil  many  of  the  Corinthians,  hear» 
ing,  believed,  and  were  baptized. 

17.  Ails  xix.  5.  When  they  heard  this,  they  were  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jefus. 

18.  Atls  xxii.  19.  And  now,  why  tarrieft  thou?  Arife 
and  be  baptized,  and  wa(h  away  thy  fins,  calling  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord. 

19.  Rom.  vi.  3,  4.  Know  ye  not,  that  fo  many  of  us  as 
were  baptized  if§30  Chrift  Jefus,  were  baptized  into  his 
death  ?  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptifm  into 
death,  that  like  as  Chrift  was  raifed  up  from  the  dead  by 
the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  fo  we  alfo  (hould  walk  in 
newnefs  of  life. 


Serin.  I.]  of  Baptifm.  i  3 

20.  I  Cor.  i.  i  J,  14,  15,  16,  17.  Were  ye  baptized  in 
the  name  of  Paul  ?  I  thank  God  that  I  baptized  none  of 
you  but  Crifpus  and  Gaius  ;  left  any  fhould  fay  that  I  had 
baptized  in  mine  own  name.  And  I  baptized  alfo  the  houfe- 
hold  of  Stephanas  :  Beiides,  I  know  not  whether  I  baptized 
any  other ;  for  Chrift  font  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach 
the  gofpel. 

21.  1  Cor.  vi.  11.     But  ye  are  wafhed. 

22.  1  Cor.  12,  13.  For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  bap- 
tized into  one  body.* 

23.  1  Cor.  xv.  29.  Elfe  what  fhall  they  do  that  are 
baptized  for  the  dead  ? 

24.  Gal.  iii.  27.  For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  bap- 
tized into  Chrift,  have  put  on  Chrift. 

25.  Eph.  iv.  5.     One  baptifm. 

26.  Eph.  v.  26.  That  he  might  fanclify  and  cleanfe  it 
with  the  wafhing  of  water  by  the  word. 

27.  Col.  ii.  j 2.  Buried  with  him  in  baptifm,  wherein 
alfo  ye  are  rifen  with  him. 

28.  Titus  iii.  5.  According  to  his  mercy  he  faved  us, 
by  the  wafhing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft. 

29.  Heb.  vi.  2.     The  doctrine  of  baptifm s  f 

30.  Heb.  x.  22.     Our  bodies   wafhed  with   pure  water. 

31.  1  Peter  iii.  21.  The  like  figure  whereunto  even 
baptifm  doth  now  fave  us,  (not  the  putting  away  the  fifth 
of  the  flefh,  but  the  anfwer  of  a  good  confeience  toward* 
God,  by  the  refurre&ion  of  Jefus  Chrift.) 

Thefe,  I  believe,  are  all  the  texts  in  the  New  Teftament 
which  have  a  plain  and  obvious  reference  to  either  the  bap- 
tifm of  John  or  of  Chrift.  They  afford  us  the  furn  of  all 
the  knowledge  which  we  can  have  of  either  the  mode  or 
fubjects  of  Chriftian  baptifm.  What  thefe  paffages  fay,  we 
may  believe  :  what  they  do  not  countenance,  we  may  not 
believe.  1  will  now  fet  before  you  thofe  paiTages  where 
wafhing  is  mentioned,  and  the  Greek  words  which  are  ufed. 

1.  Matth.  vi.  17.  But  thou,  when  thou  fafteft,  anoint 
thy  head,  and  (nip/ai)  wafh  thy  face. 

*This  intends,  as  feme  fuppofc,  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft. 
+  It  is  not  certain  that  this  hath  any  reference  to  Chriitian  bnptifm. 
If  it  have,  it  mini  refer  not  to  that  only.      See  DooDR  ICE  in  ioe, 

B 


T4  The  Mode  and  Subj  [Serm.  I. 

2.  Matth.  xv.  2.  Why  do  thy  difciples  tranfgrefs  the 
tradition  of  the  elders  ?  for  they  [niplonlai)  wafh  not  th<?ir 
hands  when  they  eat  hread. 

3.  Matth.  xxvii.  24.  When  Pilate  faw  that  he  could 
prevail  nothing,  hut  that  rather  a  tumult  was  made,  he 
took  water  and  (japenipfato)  wafhed  his  hands. 

4.  Mark  vis.  2.  And  when  they  faw  fome  of  his  difci- 
ples eat  bread  with  defiled,  that  is  to  fay  with  (anipto'u)  un- 
wafhen  hands. 

5.  Verfe  3.  For  the  Pharftees,  and  all  the  Jews,  ex- 
cept they  (i:ipsoi:ta'i)  wafh  their  hands  oft,  they  eat  not,  Sec. 

6.  Verfe  4.  When  they  come  from  the  market,  except 
they  (bapiisontai)  wafh,  they  eat  not  ;  and  many  other 
things  there  be  which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the 
(bapiifmous)  walkings  of  cups  and  pots,  brazen  veffels,  and 
of  tables. 

7.  Verfe  5.  But  eat  bread  with  [aniptois)  unwafhen 
hands. 

8.  Verfe  8.  For,  laying  afide  the  commandments  of 
God,  ye  hold  the  tradition  of  men,  as  the  {laphjmous)  walk- 
ing of  pots  and  cups. 

9.  Li.  \f  v.  2.  And  they  (apcplunan)  were  wafhing 
their  nets. 

10.  Luke  vii.  38.  And  flood  at  his  feet,  behind  him, 
weeping,  and  began  [breeheln)  to  walk  his  feet. 

11.  Verfe  44.  And  he  turned  to  the  woman,  and  faid 
unto  Simon,  Seeft  thou  this  woman  ?  I  entered  into  thine 
houfe,  thou  gaveft  me  no  water  for  my  feet ;  but  fhe 
[ebrexe)  hath  wafhed  my  feet  with  tears. 

12.  Ijule  xi.  38.  And  when  the  Pharifees  faw  it,  that 
he  had  not  firft  (ebaptifthe)  wafhed  before  dinner. 

13.  John  \x.  7.  And  faid  unt^o  him,  Go,  and  (tiipfai) 
wafh  in  the  pool  of  Siloam  ;— he  went  his  way  therefore 
and  (enipfato)  wafhed. 

14.  Verfe  15.  Then  again  the  Pharifees  alio  afked 
him  how  he  had  received  his  fight :  he  faid  unto  them, 
He  put  clay  upon  mine  eyes,  and  I  (enipfamen)  wafhed  and 
do  fee. 

lS'  7°^in  XI'i-  5*  After  that  he  poured  water  into  a 
bafon,  and  began  (niptein)  to  w.:lh  the  difciples'  feet. 

1 5.  Verfe  6.  And  Peter  ikid  unto  him,  Lor  J,  dci; 
iiiou  (nipteis)  wafh  my  feet  ? 


S  er  m .  I .  ]  of  Baptifim  1 5 

17.  Veife  8.  Peter  faith  unto  him,  Thou  fli.ilt  ruever 
[n'tpfei)  waih  my  feet.  Jefus  anfwered  him,  If  I  (ntyfo} 
waih  theenot,  thou  hall;  no  part  with  me. 

18.  Verio  10.  Jefus  faith  to  him,  He  that  is  (olelou- 
taenos-)  wafhed,  needeth  not  fave  {nlpfii/ihai)  to  waih.  his 
feet,  &g. 

19.  Verfe  14.  If  f  then,  your  Lord  anl  Mailer  (en>>- 
fa)  have  wafhed  your  feet,  ye  alio  ought  (niptein)  to  waih 
one  another's  feet. 

20.  ./#?.i-  ix.  37.    And  it  came  to  pafs  in  thofe  days  th  it 
fiie   was  fick  and  died,  whom  when  they  had   (ioufa 
warned. 

21.  yA?.r  xvi.  33.  Ana  he  took  them  the  fame  hour  of 
the  night,  and  (eloufen)  wafhed  their  (tripes. 

22.  A3s  xxii.  16.  And  now,  why  tarried:  thou  ?  Arife 
3nd  be  baptized,  and  (apoloufai)  waih  away  thy  fins. 

23.  1  Cor.  vi.  11.  But  fuch  were  fome  of  you,  but  ye 
(apeloufaglhe)  are  wafhed. 

24.  Eph.  v.  26.  That  he  might  fanclify  and  cleanfe  it 
with  Uoutro)  the  wafhing  of  water  by  the  word. 

25.  1  Tim.  v.  10.  If  ihe  (enipfe/i)  have  wafhed  the- 
faints'  feet. 

26.  Titus  iii.  5.    By  the  (lovtrou)  wafhing  of  regeneration. 

27.  Hib.'ix.  10.  Which  flood  only  in  meats  and  drinks, 
and  [diaphorois  bapiifmois)  divers  wafhings. 

28.  Heb.  x.  22.  Having  our  bodies  {lehumenoi}  wafhed 
with  pure  water. 

29.  2  Peter  ii.  22.  But  it  is  happened  unto  them  ac- 
cording to  ihe  true  proverb — and  the  low  that  {loufamene) 
was  wafhed,  &c. 

30.  Rev.  i.  5.  Unto  him  that  level  us  and  (loufanii) 
waihed  us  from  our  fins  in  h:s  own  blood, 

31.  1  Rev.  vii.  14.  Theie  a:e  they  who  came  out  of 
great  tribulation,  and  (eplunan)  h:\v:  wafted  their  reb.s  hi 
the  blood  of  the  Lamb.* 

Thofe  pafFages  which  make  mention  of  sprinkling, 
with  die  Greek  words  nfed,  now  call  for  your  attention. 

1.  Bleb.  ix.  13.  For  if  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats, 
and  the  aihes  of  an  heifer  (rantizoufa)  fprinkling  the  uiv 
clean,  &c. 

*  Plunl  properly  fignifiea  to  waih  clothes ;   as  km,  the  body  ;   and 
v,  the  face  and  hands. 


1 6  The  Mode  and  Subjefis         [Serm.  I. 

2.  Vcrfe  19.  He  (Mofes)  took  the  blood  of  calves 
.md  of  goats,  with  water,  and  fcarlet  wool,  and  hyffop,  and 
{errantije)  ipi inkled  both  the  book  and  ail  the  people. 

3.  Heb.  .12.  Haying  our  hearts  (erratiti/meifoi)  fprink* 
led  from  an  evil  confidence. 

4.  Heb.  xi.  28.  Through  faith  he  kept  the  paflover 
and  the  [prrj}Li:!;n)  fprinkling  of  blood. 

5.  Heb.  iii.  24.  And  to  the  blood  of  [ranlifmou) 
iprmkljng. 

6.  1  Peter  i.  2.  And  to  the  (rantlfmor.)  fprinkling  of 
the  blood  of  Jefus  Chriit. 

Lqflly.  You  will  now  give  attention  for  a  moment  to 
thofe  paflages  of  fcripture  where  the  word  dip  is  mentioned. 

i.  Luke  xvi.  24.  That  he  may  (bapse)  dip  his  finger 
in  water. 

2.  Matth.  xxvi.  23.  And  he  anfwered  and  faid,  He 
that  {einL:pj'as)  dippeth  his  hand  with  me  in  the  difh. 

3.  Mark  xiv.  20.  And  he  anfwered  and  faid  unto 
them,  It  is  one  of  the  twelve  that  (embaptomenos)  dippeth 
with  me  in  the  difh. 

4.  John  xiii.  26.  And  he  anfwered,  He  it  is  to  whom 
I  ihall  give  a  fop  when  I  have  (bap/as)  dipped  it;  and 
when  he  had  (embepfas)  dipped  the  fop,  &c. 

5.  Rev,  xix.  13.  And  he  was  clothed  with  a  vefture 
[bebammenon)  dipped  in  blood. 

A  few  remarks  on  what  we  have  pafTed  over  will  clofe 
iicourfe. 

1.  Wc  fee  th;  words  which  appertain  to  the  or- 
dinance of  baptifm,  fi^nify  the  fame  which  they  would  pro- 

ihe  fcripture  mode. 

2.  Wc  fee  that  the  fubjeel  of  baptifm  is  very  repeatedly 
mentioned  in  the  New  Teftament.  It  is  brought  to  view 
exprefslj   in  about  threefcore  paliages. 

3.  r   baptifm   is  mentioned,  and    nekher  the 

word  btiptizo  nor  baptifmos  is  ui'ed,  the  word  fubdituted 
plainly  intimates  that  bathing,  or  wafhing  the  body  all 
over,  is  the  mode  ;  for  this  is  the  fignification  of  louo,  which 
is  the  word,  and  the  only  word,  which  the  fciiptures  em- 
in  the  room  of  baptizS.  , 
.  4.  Whenever  baptizo  or  baptlfmos  is  tranfiated  walking,  a 
cerenioni.il  and  not  a  common  walking  is  manifeftly  intended. 


Serm.  I.]  of  Baptijls.  1 7 

5.  We  find  that  in  all  the  places  where  fprinkling  is 
mentioned,  the  original  words,  rbantizo  and  proj'chufin,  are 
very  different  from  bapti%o  and  laptifmos. 

6.  You  will  pleafe  to  obfcrve,  that  wherever  we  find, 
through  the  New-Teftament,  the  word,  to  dip,  it  is  from 
the  fame  theme  whence  baptixo  comes. 

7.  We  fee  that  every  thing  looks  as  though  immerjion 
might  be  the  mode ;  and,  as  for  Jprinkling,  there  is,  to  fay 
the  leaft,  nothing  which  looks  like  it. 


B« 


The  Mode  and  Subjects        [Serm.  II. 


SERMON   II. 

MATTHEW  xxviii.  19,  20. 

Co  ye,  therefore,  and  leach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  tie  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  teaching 
them  to  olferve  all  things  ivhatfoever  I  have  commanded  you  : 
And,  lo,  I, am  nvilh  you  alivay,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
ivor  Id.      Amen. 


T 


'HE  bufmefs  which  we  are  now  upon  depends  very 
much  upon  the  definitions  of  certain  words,  and 
principally  upon  the  definition  of  the  word  baptize,  and  upon 
the  certain  evidence  of  fuch  definition  or  definitions  being 
accurate  and  juft.  For  we  can  no  othervvife  underiland 
what  God  the  Lord  faith  unto  us,  than  by  knowing  the 
import  of  the  words  by  winch  he  is  pleafed  to  communicate 
his  will.  The  great  Teacher  who  came  from  God,  hath 
doubtlefs  communicated  his  mind  fo  explicitly  that  the  hum- 
ble in  heart  may  know  the  common  matters  which  relate 
to  faith  and  practice.  If  we  devoutly  fearch  the  fcriptures, 
and  feek  wifdom  as  (liver,  and  fearch  for  her  as  for  hid 
treafures,  God  will  make  us  to  underiland  knowledge,  and 
to  ferve  him  with  acceptable  practice.  The  Spirit  of  the 
Lord  hath  moft  certainly  chofen  acceptable  words,  words  of 
definite  meaning.  We  are  to  fearch  cut  their  fignification, 
and  to  be  obedient.  I  cannot  judge  of  their  fignification 
for  you,  nor  can  I  anfwe.r  for  the  judgment  which  you  iluill 
make  up,  nor  can  you  for  me. 

I  am  by  my  office  obliged  to  exhibit,  fo  far  as  I  can,  all 
thofe  divine  truths  which  relate  to  faith  and  practice.  I  am 
obliged  to  believe  and  praclife  according  to  the  bed  lipht 
which  I  can  gather,  or  have  in  any  way  afforded  me.  You 
are  under  fimilar  obligations. 

Whilfl  'we  proceed,  I  wifh  you  to  believe  fully  two 
things  ;  one  is,  that  truth,  if  believed  and  practifed,  will 
not,  on  the  whole,  harm  you.  The  other  is,  that  the  mod 
fure  way  to  acquire  truth  is,  to  be  of  a  humble  and  obe- 
dient mind,  ready  to  receive  the  truth.  For  God  refifleth 
the  proud,  but  giveth  grace  to  the  humble. 


Scrm.  If.]  of  Baptifm.  19 

In  the  preceding  difcourfe,  we  attended  to  the  definition 
of  certain  words  which  appertain  to  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tifm ;  and  then  collected  the  fcripture  account  of  baptifm, 
together  with  fome  other  texts  which  are  fuppofed  to 
throw  light  upon  the  fubjecl  under  confederation.  In  this 
difcourfe  we  are — 

3.  To  produce  the  more  direct  evidence  that  my  defi- 
nitions of  baptifm  and  to  baptize  are  accurate  and  juft. 

The  definition  which  I  gave  of  baptifm  was,  a  iva/hing, 
afacred,  a  ceremonial  wafhing.  I  will  now  add  to  this  defi- 
nition, that  it  is  immerfion,  or  dipping  one  all  oyer  in  water. 

The  definition  which  I  gave  of  the  word  bapti-zo  is,  to  dip 
all  over,  to  walh.  I  will  alio  add,  that  the  word  fignifies, 
to  wafh  the  body,  or  any  thing,  all  over.  What  I  mean  is, 
that  thefe  are  the  iignification  of  the  words  baptifma  and 
baptizd,  which  are  rendered  baptifm,  and,  to  baptize. 

I  am  now  to  produce  evidence,  that  this  is  a  juft  and 
accurate  definition  cf  the  words. 

You  will  obferve,  that  this  is  quite  different  from  the 
fubjeils  of  baptifm  ;  that  is  another  fubjecl,  which  mud  be 
attended  to  in  its  place. 

The  evidence  which  I  have  to  offer,  in  order  to  fix  pre- 
ciiely  the  jufl  fenfe  and  meaning  cf  the  words  baptifm  and 
to  baptize,  is  contained  in  the  following  facts.     The 

1  If.  Comprifes  what  the  Greek  Lexicon,  Concordance, 
and  two  Engiiih  Dictionaries,  tefiify  of  the  words. 

Schrevelius's  Lexicon  teftifies,  the  import  of  baptifm  is 
lotto,  wafhing.  Alfo  that  to  baptize  fignifies  to  ivafo,  to  put 
under  water,  or  under  any  other  liquid  thing ;  to  link,  dip 
in,  duck  or  plunge  over  head,  to  immerfe. 

Bntterwonh's  Concordance  fays,  baptifm  is  an  ordinance 
of  the  New  Tcfiament,  inftituted  by  Jefus-  Chriff ,  whereby 
a  profelfed  believer  in  Chrifl  is,  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  o{  the  Holy  Ghoff.,  immerfed  in  and 
covered  with  water,  and  then  railed  up  out  of  it,  as  a  fign 
of  his  fellowfhip  with  Chrift  in  his  death,  burial  and  refur- 
rection,  and  a  fign  of  his  own  death  to  fin,  and  "refur  recti  on 
to  newnefs  cf  life  here,  and  to  life  eternal  hereafter.  The 
fame  Concordance  defines  the  word  to  baptize,  thus — to  dip, 
immerfe,  or  plunge. 

Entick's  Dictionary  fays,  that — Baptifm  is  a  facrament 
that  admits  into  the  church. — Baptizer,  one  who  chrillens, 


20  The  Mode  and  Subjefts         [Serm.  II. 

or  dips. — Baptijlery,  the  place  of  baptizing  at,  a  font Bap- 
tize, to  chriilen,  plunge,  overwhelm. — Baptized,  admitted 
to  baptifm,  dipt,  &c. 

Bailey's  Dictionary,  fpeaking  of  baptifm,  or  rather  the 
place  in  which  peribns  were  baptized,  fays,  Baptijlcry  is 
either  the  place  or  veifel  in  which  perfons  are  baptized. 
In  ancient  times,  this  being  performed  by  immerfion,  the 
perfons  fo  initiated  went  into  a  river  and  were  plunged  ; 
but  in  the  time  of  Conftantine  the  Great,  chapels  or  places 
on  purpofe  to  baptize  in,  were  built  in  great  cities,  which 
was  performed  in  the  eaftern  and  warmer  countries  by  dip- 
ping the  perfons  ;  but  in  procefs  of  time,  in  the  weuern 
and  colder  countries,  fprinkling  was  fubltituted  in  place  of 
dipping  ;  which  was  the  origin  of  our  fonts  in  churches. 

2.     1  will  repeat  fome  of  the  attendant  or  circumftantial 
facts,  which  have  relation  to  the  ordinance  of  baptifm,  that 
you  may  look  at  them,  and  judge  for  yourfelves,  whether 
the  preceding  definitions  appear  juft. 
John  baptized  in  the  river  Jordan. 

He  was  baptizing  in  Enon,  becaufe  there  was  much  water 
there. 

The  name  of  the  place,  where  baptifm  was  adminiflered, 
is  ba->tif?erionf  or  baptiftery,  which  fignifies  a  place  in  which 
to  warn  the  body  all  over. 

Baptifm  fignifies  to  dip,  plunge,  immerfe,  or  wafh  the 
body  all  over  in  water. 

Baptizer  fignifies  one  who  dips,  plunges,  or  wafhes  the 
body  all  over  in  water. 

To  baptize  fignifies  to  plunge  under  water,  to  dip,  or  to 
wafh  the  body  all  over. 

To  be  baptized  is  to  be  plunged,  immerfed,  or  waflied 
all  over  in  water. 

Does  this  whole  matter,  taking  fo  many  of  the  words, 
and  fome  circumftances,  and  finding  them  all  fo  well  agree- 
ing together,  help  you,  in  any  degree,  to  the  definition  of 
the  word  baptize  ?  Suppofing  thefe  things  be  facts,  and  you 
had  never  had  any  prejudice  for,  or  againft,  the  word  bap- 
tize, would  you  be  able  to  gather  the  meaning  of  it  from 
what  hath  been  faid  ? 

There  is  an  objection  ftarting  in  the  minds  of  fome  of  you, 
which  (hould  be  now  obviated,  left  it  prejudice  your  minds 
from  the  truth. 


Serm.  II.]  of  Baptifm.  2\ 

The  objection  is,  Do  not  the  words  fignify  fnme  other 
things,  as  well  as  thofe  which  have  been  mentioned  ? 

Anf.  I  have  thought  they  did  :  but  I  have  fearched  in 
feveral  dictionaries,  and  read  many  authors  upon  the  words, 
yet  have  not  found  one  dictionary  which  has  given  x  defini- 
tion of  the  words  different  from  what  t  have  given  ;  nor  one 
author  who  has  been  able  to  (how,  that  die  true  meaning  of 
the  words  is  any  otherwife  than  what  I  have  mentioned. 
Eelides,  the  very  courfe  of  argumentation  which  Dr.  Lath- 
rop,  Mr.  Cleav eland  and  others  have  taken,  by  which 
to  prove  that  baptizo-haxh.  fome  other  fignificatton  than  to 
dip,  immerfe,  to  bury  or  overwhelm,  is  an  implicit  confef- 
fion  that  they  were  not  able  to  prove  any  fuch  thing.  It 
is  alfo  a  ftrong  prefumptive  argument,  that  no  different  fig- 
nification  can  be  found. 

Their  argument  is  this :  Bapto  fignifies,  in  one  inftance, 
in  the  Old  Tetlament,  to  wet  with  the  dew  of  heaven.  Bap- 
tize is  the  offspring  of  bapto,  and  consequently  maybe  taken 
in  the  fame  fenfe.  This  argument  is  of  the  fame  w 
with  the  following :  My  father  believes  in  fprinkling,  as 
being  baptifm  ;  I  am  his  offspring,  and  confequently  I  be- 
lieve the  fame  ;  when  the  fact  is,  I  am  largely  convinced 
that  it  is  no  fuch  thing.  Would  gentlemen  employ  fuch 
an  argument,  did  not  their  caufe  labour  ?  Such  an  argu- 
ment, when  it  (lands,  as  it  does,  at  the  front  of  all  their  fup- 
pofed  evidence,  is  an  implicit  confeffion  that  they  cannot 
prove  what  they  wiih  to.* 

This  matter  will  have  farther  attention  in  another  place. 

*  Since  writing  the  above,  I  have  met  with  Cole's  Latin  Diftionary, 
which  gives  one  Englifh  of  baptizo,  to  fprinkle.  It  hath,  indeed,  been 
matter  of  no  little  lurprife,  that  all  modem  diaionary  compilers  have 
not  given  one  definition  of  the  word  baptize,  to  fprinkle  ;  for  it,  indeed, 
is  one  fignification,  which  the  prance  of  many  Chriftians,  for  two  or 
three  hundred  years  pal>,  has  given  to  the  word. 

Had  all  lexicons,  and  all  dictionaries,  for  the  two  laft  centuries,  borne 
united  tcftimony,  that  one  fenfe  of  the  word  laptizo-vtas  to  ipnnkle,  it 
would  not  have  been  half  fo  unaccountable  as  it  now  is  that  they  have  lo 
generally  retained  the  ancient  and  primitive  hgni fixations,  and  refufed  to 
adopt  the  modern  one,  which  prejudice,  convenience  and  modern  prac- 
tice have  given  to  it.  Indeed,  could  a  thouland  modern  lexicons  and 
Hbnaries  be  found,  which  mould  fay,  to  fprinkle  is  one  fenfe  in  which 
-JM  is  ufed,  it  would  all  come  to  nothing,  unlefs  they  fhould  tcihiy 
that  this  is  one  of  its  ancient  and  primitive  iignificaiions  :  and  even  then. 


22  The  Mode  and  Subjects         [Serm.  II. 

3.  The  words  baptijmos  and  bapt'mo  have  two,  and  only- 
two,  tranflations  in  the  Nev-Teitament.  Thefe  two  are, 
bapiifm  and  ivq/hing.  They  are  very  generally  rendered, 
baptifm,  or  to  baptize.  This  is  their  ufual  translation.  But 
feveral  times  in  Mark,  Lule,  and  in  the  Epiftle  to  the  He. 
Irezvs,  they  are  rendered  wafhing.     As  the  wafhing  o! 

and  cup',  and  brazen  veflels  and  tables,  or  feats  on  which  they 
reclined,  when  they  ate  meat  ;  and  diapborois  baptijmou  in 
Hebrew  is  rendered  divers  walkings. 

In  the  law  given  by  Mofes,  the  people  were,  on  many  oc- 
caiions,  to  bathe  their  bodies,  and  walh  their  clothes  in 
water  ;  and  alfo  to  put  their  pots  and  cups  and  brazen 
veffels  into  water,  that  they  might  be  cleanfed  from  ceremo- 
nial uncleannefi.  To  thefe  legal  ceremonies  the  Pharifees 
had  added  traditional  ones,  which  were,  no  doubt,  obferved 
in  the  fame  manner  as  thofe  appointed  by  the  Lord.  If  fo, 
then  the  wafhing  of  pots,  &c.  in  Mark,  was  putting  them 
into  water,  as  the  command  was  to  do,  Lev:t.  xi.  32.  The 
divers  wafliings  in  Heb.  ix.  10.  were  ceremonial  warnings, 
or  bathings,  in  which  the  body  was  warned,  or  dipped. 
Numb.  xix.  19.  This  being  the  cafe,  does  not  tins  matter 
go  to  confirm,  or  determine,  what  is  the  definition  of  bap- 
tifm ? 

4.  We  will  now  mention  a  few  noted  witnefTes,  who 
have  given  their  testimony  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word 
baptizo. 

Calvin,  a  very  .warm  eppofer  of  the  Baptifts,  fhall,  as  a 
witnefs  in  this  caufe,  fpeak  firil.  His  teftimony  is,  "  How- 
beit,  the  very  word  of  baptizing  fignifteih  to  dip." 

Zanchhis,  as  brought  forward  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Butter- 
worth,  ihall  be  my  next  witnefs.  He  fays,  bapt'1%0  is  to  im- 
merfe,  plunge  under,  to  overwhelm  in  water, 

I  could  quote,  or  bring  forward,  a  multitude  of  witneues, 
and  all  from  our  own  order,  the  Pedobaptilts,  to  prove  the 
fame  point.  But  in  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witneifes,  if 
they  be  good  ones,  every  word  ihall  be  eilablilhed.  Wo 
will  therefore  produce   but  one  more  ;    that  ihall  be  good 

v  wpul  !  corn;:  to  no  -nore  than  this,  that  the  word  is  liTs  dotermi 

fuppofediobe.    Con1.' I  hey  do  this,  it  would  be  fliil  uw 

uniefs  thc-y  prove  the  (fcriptures  iile   ii  in  this  fenfe,  which  they  c 

11  hv  \\:]\  to  theii  point,  u.ilv 
can  ftiow  tiiui  :ation  to  the 


Serm.  II.]  of  Baptifm.  23 

Dr.  Owen.     "  For  the  original  and  natural  Signification  of 
it  (baptizo)  Signifies  to  dip,  to  plunge."* 

5.  I  will  mention  to  you  a  Greek  word,  which  Paul 
repeatedly  ufes,  as  Signifying  the  fame  thing  as  baptizo,  and 
where  he  means  the  fame  thing,  namely,  baptifm. 

In  !  Cor.  vi.  1 1.  Paul,  fpeaking  to  the  Corinthians  of 
divers  kinds  of  vile  finners,  fays,  "  And  fuch  were  fome  of 
you  ;  but  ye  are  wafhed,'"  &c. 

Eph.  v.  26.  That  he  might  fanclify  and  cleanfe  it  (the 
church)  with  the  nvaflnng  of  water,  by  the  word. 

Heb.  x.  22.  Let  us  draw  near,  with  a  true  heart,  in  full 
affurance  of  faith,  having  our  hearts  fprinkled  from  an  evil 
confcience,  and  our  bodies  ivafied  with  pure  water. 

The  Pedobaptifts  acknowledge  that  ivajlnng,  in  thefe 
texts,  means  baptifm,  and  I  know  not  that  any  of  them  deny 
it.  Baptifm  and  warning  appear  to  be  ufed  as  fynonymous 
words,  or  as  words  fignifying  the  fame  thing.  If  this  be 
the  cafe,  then  the  two  words,  baptizo  and  hud,  which  are 
tranflated,  one  to  baptize,  and  the  other  to  walk,  mean  the 
fame  thing,  and  are  thus  intended  by  the  Apoftle.  Then, 
provided  we  can  determine  what  louo  means,  we  can  alfo 
determine  what  is  the  fignification  of  baptizo.  •  This  word, 
louo,  fignifies  to  wafli,  and  to  bathe  the  body  in  water ;  for 
thus  it  is  generally  if  not  univerfally  ufed,  and  from  it  is 
loutron,  a  bath,  or  place  to  wafh  the  body  in.  Befides,  the 
word  lotto  is  never  ukd  in  the  New-Teftament,  nor  any 
where  elfe,  to  my  knowledge,  to  iignify  either  fprinkling  or 
common  warning.  Its  appropriate  fenfe  appears  to  be, 
bathing,  or  warning,  any  thing  all  over  ;  as  you  may  fee, 
jicls  ix.  37.  and  xvi.  3352  Peter  ii.  22  ;  which  are  the  only 
places  where  I  recoiled  the  word  loud  is  ufed,  fave  where 
the  ordinance  of  baptifm  appears  to  be  referred  to.  This 
being  the  cafe,  the  matter  appears  juft  as  it  would,- provided 
the  ordinance  included  the  bathing  of  the  body  in  water. 
This  is  letting  fcripture  interpret  itfelf ;  and  the  interpreta- 
tion which  it  gives  is,  baptifm  is  bathing,  or  wafhing  the 
body  in  water.  This,  therefore,  may  help  you  a  little  to- 
wards determining  in  your  minds  what  is  the  fignification 
of  baptizo.  For  louo  is  repeatedly  ufed  in  fcripture,  as  im- 
porting the  fame  mode  of  wafhing  which  is  commanded  in 
the  ordinance  cf  baptifm. 

%  Ancient  Dialogue. 


24  The  Mode  and  Subjefls         [Serm.  II. 

6.  Paul's  defcription  of  the  mode  of  baptizing,  or  of 
"what  is  done  to  thofe  who  are  baptized,  may  afford  you 
farther  light  upon  the  fubject. 

Paul  brings  this  matter  up  to  the  Roman  and  Colofllan 
Chriilians,  as  a  matter  well  known  to  them.  To  the  for- 
mer he  fays,  Ro?n.  vi.  4..  Therefore  we  are  buried  with 
him  by  baptifm  into  death,  that  like  as  Ghrift  was  raifed  up 
from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  fo  we  alfo 
fhould  walk  in  newnefs  cf  life.  To  the  other  he  fays,  Col. 
ii.  12.  Buried  with  him  in  baplifm,  wherein  alfo  ye  are 
rifen  with  him,  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God, 
who  hath  raifed  him  from  the  dead. 

Upon  thefe  texts,  Dr.  Doddridge  has  tbe  following  note. 
"  It  feems  the  part  of  candour  to  confefs,  that  here  is  an 
allufion  to  baptifm  by  immerfion,  as  was  moft  ufuaHs thefe 
early  times."  Here  the  good  doctor  fays,  "  as  was  mojl 
ufual ;"  this  I  fliall,  by  and  by,  explain  to  you. 

In  the  mean  time,  you  will  pleafe  to  pay  due  attention 
to  what  was  done  to  thofe  who  were  baptized,  and  which 
appears  to  be  familiar  to  the  Roman  and  Colofiian  Chrif- 
tians.  The  Apoflle  makes  no  remarks,  and  explains  noth- 
ing to  them,  but  fpeaks  to  them  as  though  they  would  and 
did  well  underfland  what  he  meant,  when  he  faid,  "  We  are 
buried  with  him  by  baptifm  into  death ;"  and,  "  Buried 
with  him  in  baptifm."  It  is  plain  fact,  that  Paul  thus 
fpeaks,  and  it  alfo  appears,  very  plainly,  that  he  had  no  ap- 
prehenfion  but  that  he  fhould  be  underftood. 

Biiliop  Hoadly's  declaration  appears  to  be  much  in 
point :  '  If  baptifm,'  fays  he,  '  had  been  then,'  i.  e.  in  the 
^pottles'  days,  '  performed  as  it  is  now  among  us,  we  fhould 
never  have  fo  much  as  heard  of  this  form  of  expreffion,  of 
dying  and  rifing  again  in  this  rite.'* 

Thefe  tilings  I  have  thought  it  my  duty  to  lay  before 
you,  that  I  might  aflift  you,  by  a  number  of  plain  facts,  to 
form  a  judgment,  each  one  for  himfelf,  what  the  meaning 
of  baptifm  is,  and  what  the  word  to  baptize  fignifies. 

I  have  ftill  more  light  upon  this  fubject,  and  (hall,  in  the 
next  difcourfe,  lay  it  within  your  view.  It  will  perhaps  be, 
to  fome  of  you,  more  convincing  than  any  thing  which 
I  have  as  yet_  exhibited.  But  previoufly  I  will  make 
one  obfervation,  and  it  is  this :    all  the  evidence  which  we 


*Tcn  Letters. 


1 


Serm.  II.]  &f  Baptifm.  1$ 

have  been  exhibiting,  we  have  on  one  fide  of  the  quetiion  ; 
and,  if  I  miftake  not,  none  on  the  other  to  counteract  it  i 
for,  if  my  memory  and  judgment  be  correct,  the  wifeft  and 
beft  of  men,  of  our  own  denomination,  have  afTerted,  that 
thefe  things  are  fo.  I  do  not  fay  that  all  good  men  have  ; 
but  the  moft  learned  have,  and  fome  who  have  appeared 
very  pious. 

But  you  will  fay,  Why  have  they  not  pra&ifed  different- 
ly, if  they  have  dius  believed  ?  I  am  not  anfwerable  for 
their  practice  ;  but,  if  the  Lord  will,  1  fliall,  ere  long,  give 
you  the  reafons-which  they  affign. 

I  fliall  only  add,  for  the  prefent,  two  or  three  confequen- 
ces,  and  then  leave  the  fubject  for  your  consideration. 

1.  The  Baptifts  have,  againft  our  practice,  and  for  theirs, 
that  kind  of  evidence  which  is,  perhaps,  in  all  cafes  but  the 
prefent,  confidered  the  molt  unequivocal  and  certain.  This 
evidence  is  given  in  by  a  cloud  of  witneftes,  who,  whilft  they 
are  bearing  their  teftimony,  condemn  themfelves  every  fen- 
tence  they  utter.  If  thefe  men,  who  are  confefted  by  both 
fides  to  be  both  pious  and  learned,  may  be  believed,  the 
caufe  will  moft  certainly  be  determined  againft  us ;  for 
there  was  never  a  clearer  cafe.  They  unitedly  teftify  that 
the  fcripture  mode  of  baptifm  is  immerfion,  but  omit  the 
practice.     In  this  they  condemn  themfelves. 

2.  The  fcripture  fenfe,  and,  for  aught  appears,  the  only 
fenfe,  of  baptifm,  is,  dipping,  immerfion,  burying  in  water, 
being  overwhelmed,  and  the  like. 

3.  We  are  brought  to  this  dilemma,  either  to  com- 
mence Baptifts,  as  to  the  mode,  or  do  as  our  fathers  have 
done,  confefs  the  truth  in  theory,  and  neglecl:  it  in  pra&ice. 


26  The  Mode  and  Subjecls         [Serm.  III. 


SERMON   III. 


MATTHEW  xxviii.  19,  2  c. 

Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  tie  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghojl  ;  teach- 
ing them  toobjerve  all  things  what foever  I  have  commanded 
you  :  And,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alivay,  even  unto  the  end  tf  the 
world.     Amen* 

MIN,  brethren,  and  fathers,  we  are  ft  HI  upon  a  very 
important  fubjeel — a  fubjecT:  which  highly  concerns 
us  as  Chriftians — a  fubjedl  in  which  our  feelings,  our  rep- 
utation, and  our  peace  too,  may  not  be  a  little  concerned. 
Many  things,  not  to  fay  every  thing,  call  upon  us  not  to  go 
too  faft  ;  and,  at  the  fame  time,  obedience  to  our  common 
Lord  forbids  all  backwardnefs,  in  purfuing  where  his  truth 
and  Spirit  lead  us. 

All  which  I  requeft  of  you  is,  with  candour  hear,  with 
readinefs  obey,  what  truth  fhall  dictate. 

Should  we,  after  long  and  ferious  deliberation,  be  obliged 
to  believe  and  pracYife  differently  from  what  we  have  here- 
rofoie  done,  we  fhall  be  much  expofed  to  two  things :  one 
is,  to  be  reviled  ;  the  other,  to  revile  again.  What  we  fhall 
d  is,  patience  to  bear  the  one,  and  grace  that  we  may 
avoid  the  other. 

Perhaps  human  nature  is  more  inclined  to  nothing  than 
10  an  overbearing  fpirit.  It  is  perfectly  confonant  wich  hu- 
ff ri  nature  to  make  or.rfelves,  and  not-  the  fcriptures,  the 
ftandard  of  both  faith  and  practice.  The  natural  confe- 
rence of  this  is  cenfure  againit.  all  who  dare  to  think,  or 
act,  as  we  do  not.  To  guard  you  againft  uni  eafonable  and 
common  prejudice,  1  will,  foi  your  confederation,  fuggeft  a 
thought,  which  we  may  do  well  to  remember;  and  it  is 
this:  many,  who  iliall  believe  and  praclife  as  we  have  long 
ckme,  may  be  as  honeft  and  faithful  as  we  then  were.  This 
being  true,  the  following  confequence  is  plain,  that  the  line 
of  conduit  which  the  Baptifts  ought  to  have  practifed,  in 
months  and  years  pati,  towards  us,  the  fame,  if  we  be  Bap- 
t'fts,  will  irt  become  us  to  purfue  with  relation  to  others.     It 


Serm.  III.]  of  Baptifm.  27 

requires  not  much  forefight  to  difcover,  that  ce  ftiali   used 
much  of  that  wifdom  which  is  profitable  to  direct. 

Whilft  it  may  be  indifpenfable  with  us  to  ufe  every  pru- 
dent mean  to  diffuie  that  light  which  God  may  graciouflj 
afford  us,  it  will  be  our  wifdom  to  do  every  thing  in  filch  a 
manner  as  not  to  heighten,  but,  if  polfible,  10  lower,  the  prej- 
udices of  good  people. 

Whilft  you,  my  dear  friends  and  people,  know  that  light 
chafeth  away  the  darknefs,  and  that  truth  will  ultimately 
prevail  againft  every  error;  I  folic  it  your  candour  and 
prayerful  attention,  that  error  may  not  be  retained,  or  pre- 
vail againft  any  of  us,  to  our  wounding. 

Our  attention  hath  already  been  called  to  the  definition 
of  a  number  of  words,  which  relate  to  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tifm, to  the  fcripture  account  of  baptifm,  together  with  fome 
other  texts,  which  were  fuppofed  to  throw  light  upon  the 
fubjeel,  and  ano  to  lb  me  evidence  in  fiippqrt  of  the  given 
definitions.  As  the  great  queftion  turns  upon  what  is  com- 
manded, and  as  that  cannot  be  otherwife  known  than  by 
making  lure  the  import  of  the  words  ufed,  we  ihall  therefore 
fearch  for  additional  light  and  certainty,  by  inquiring — 

4.  How  the  apoftles  and  primitive  Chriftians  understood, 
this  matter,  and  how  they  praclifed. 

If  this  can  be  made  plain,  then,  perhaps,  your  mind  will 
be  fatisfied,  and  your  judgments  made  up. 

I  proceed  to  lay  the  evidence  before  you. 

There  appears  no  neceffity  of  fpending  time  to  produce 
evidence  that  the  apoftles  underftcod  the  matter  to  be  as  I. 
have  proved  to  you  that  it  was  :  for  they,  no  doubt,  under- 
ftood  the  words  which  Chrift  fpake,  and  the  commands 
which  he  gave  ;  befides,  if  the  apefties  and  primitive  church 
praclifed  thus,  it  is  evident  that  they  thus  underftood  it;  for 
doubtlefs  they,  eipecially  the  apoftles,  were  honeft  men,  and 
praclifed  as  they  underftood  Jefus  Chrift  to  have  direcled 
them. 

I  will  here  make  two  obfervations  to  you  ;  and  I  wifli 
you  to  remember  them. 

The  firft  is,  no  perfon  fliould,  efpecially  in  important 
matters,  make  up  his  judgment,  that  any  particular  fubjeel 
is  true,  till  he  has  evidence  of  its  truth. 

The  other  is,  the  beft  proof  which  the  nature  of  any  cafe 
admits  of,  may  and  ought  to  be  confidered  as  evidence,  and 


28  The  Mode  and  Subjects         [Serm.  III. 

fo  received  by  us,  as  to  thofe  things  we  are  called  to  believe 
and  praclife. 

There  are  different  degrees  of  evidence  :  the  higheft  kind 
produces  knowledge.  When  the  evidence  is  fmall,  it  pro. 
duces  a  weak  and  dubious  belief.  But  where  it  is  luch 
that,  on  fuppofition  the  thing  be  true,  the  evidence  could  not 
be  greater  than  it  is,  there  we  are  obliged  to  yield  our  affent, 
and  we  do  violence  to  our  reafon  if  we  will  not  believe. 

The  evidence,  which  we  have  with  refpeel  to  the  prac- 
tice of  the  apoilles  in  the  matter  of  baptizing,  differs  in  de- 
gree, and,  in  fome  meafure,  in  kind,  from  the  evidence 
which  we  have  refpecling  the  practice  of  the  church  in  later 
ages  as  to  the  fame  matter.  But  if  we  have,  with  refpeel 
to  the  practice  of  both,  the  bed  evidence  which  the  different 
cafes  admit  of,  we  are  under  obligation  to  believe  the  evi- 
dence good,  and  the  facts  true  which  are  fupported  by  it. 

We  have  much  the  fame  kind  of  evidence  with  refpeel  to 
the  practice  of  the  apoftles,  which  we  have  as  to  the  prac- 
tice  of  the  church  for  many  ages  after  them.  Mr.  Baxter, 
biihop  Hoadly,  and  others,  teftify,  that  the  apoftolic  prac- 
tice was,  immerfion.  We  have,  moreover,  as  to  their  prac- 
tice, a  much  higher  kind  of  evidence.  In  fupport  of  their 
practice,  I  fhall  produce  the  bed  kind  of  evidence,  and 
afterwards,  whilft  ipeaking  of  the  practice  of  the  church  in 
iucceeding  age?,  may  occafionally  bring  forward  fome  of 
the  other  kind  of  evidence,  in  fupport  of  the  apoftles'  prac- 
tice. 

As  to  the  practice  of  the  apoftles,  in  the  adminiftration  of 
baptifm,  I  obferve,  wc  have  in  the  fcriptures  four  diftinct 
fources  of  evidence.     The 

j  ft.  Is  this.  When  baptifm  is  mentioned  by  the  difciples 
and  apoftles,  and  the  common  word  is  not  uied,  they  uni- 
formly employ  one  particular  word,  and  this  word  is  of 
very  determinate  Hgnincaticn,  and  expreffes  the  bathing, -or 
warning,  of  the  body  in  water,  as  Heb.  x.  22  :  Having  our 
bodies  (leloumenci)  ivajhtd  with  pure  water.  ABi  xxii.  16. 
Arife  and  he  baptized,  und  (apoloufai)  waih  away  thy  fins. 
I  Cor.  vi.  11.  But  ye  are  [apoloujajlhe)  wafted.  By  the 
determinate  fignification  of  this  word,  their  practice  appears 
to  be  irmiierfion. 

2.  The  apoftles  were  commanded  to  dip,  immerfe,  or 
pHin^c  all  over  in  water,  the  perfons  whom  they  admitted 
to  this  ordinance.      This  is  evident  from  the  determinate 


Serm.  III.]  of  Baptifnu  29 

fignification  of  the  word  to  baptize.  Says  the  command, 
Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them,  &c. 
We  have  before  proved  what  is  the  fignification  of  this 
word,  and  confequently  what  Chrill  commanded  his  dif- 
ciples,  when  he  fent  them  to  baptize. 

I  do  not  now  fay  that  the  apoflles  immerfed  any  ;  but 
this  is  what  I  fay,  they  were  commanded  thus  to  do.  I 
leave  it  for  you  to  determine,  whether  they  did,  or  whether 
they  did  not. 

3.  I  obferve  to  you,  that  the  New-Teftament,  where- 
ever  it  fpeaks  of  the  apoflles  baptizing  any,  fays  they  im- 
merfed them,  or  dipt  them  all  over  in  water.  For  this  is 
the  plain,  literal  and  common,  if  not  the  only  fignification 
of  the  word.  I  Hill  leave  it  with  you  to  determine  whether 
the  apoftles  did,  or  did  not,  prt.dtiie  thus. 

Left  fome  of  you  may  have  forgotten  what  I  have  before 

proved    to   you,    and   confequently   entertain    fome    doubt 

whether  baptifm  may  not  fometimes  fignify  the  application 

of  water  in  a  different  way  ;    we  will  make  two  or  three 

„  obfervations. 

1.  The  plain,  literal  and  common  fignification  of  the 
word  is  to  immerfe,  overwhelm,  dip,  or  to  .plunge  all  over. 

2.  There  appears  to  be  no  evidence  that  it  is  ever  ufed 
fo  much  as  once,  in  any  part  of  the  Bible,  to  fignify  the 
application  of  water  in  any  other  fenfe.  Even  in  thofe 
paffages  where  I  have  in  time  pale  fuppofed  that  the  mean- 
ing might  be,  and  probably  was,  wa/Jjiug  without  immerfion, 
the  fenfe  appears  to  be  putting  into  water  or  immerfion,  and 
not  what  we  commonly  underftand  by  the  word  walking. 
Of  this  you  may  be  convinced  by  confidering  the  treatment 
to  which  the  Jews  were  accuftomed  with  refpecT:  to  thofe 
vdfels  which  were  ceremonially  unclean.  They  were  to 
baptize  them,  or  put  them  into  water,  as  you  may  fee, 
Levit.  xi.  32.  "And  upon  whatfoever  any  of  them,  when 
they  are  dead,  doth  fall,  it  iuall  be  unclean  ;  whether  it  be 
any  veffel  of  wood,  or  raiment,  or  (kin,  or  fack  ;  farhaifoev.er 
vsjfcl  it  be,  wherein  any  work  is  done,  it  muft  be  put  into 
•water,  and  it  fliall  be  unclean  until  the  even  }  fo  it  lhall  be 
cleanfed." 

3.I  will  obferve  to  you  that  it  would  mod  vifibly  be 
a  reflection  upon  the  great  Teacher  who  came  from  Go.], 
to  fuppofe  that  he  fhould,  when  appointing  a  pofitive  inftW 
C2 


30  The  Mode  and  Subjcds        [Serm.  III. 

tution,  ufe  words  afide  from  their  plain  and  commonly  re- 
ceived lenfe,  that  too  without  giving  any  intimation  of  his 
«  ufing  the  words  in  any  fenfe  differing  from  the  common, 
efpecially  when  he  was  letting  up  a  new  inllitution,  i>bout 
which  his  moll  faithful  followers  could,  in  all  fuceeeding 
generations,  know  nothing  but  from  the  words  ufed  in  and 
about  the  institution.  Does  not  all  this  appear  plain  and 
reafonable  ? 

Now  the  Bible  in  the  plain,  literal  and  common-fenfe  of 
the  words  which  it  ufes,  fays,  the  apoftles  dipt,  plunged  or 
immerfed  all  fuch  as  they  admitted  to  baptifm.  You  will 
judge  for  yourfelves  whether  the  apoftles  practifed  thus,  or 
whether  they  did  not. 

4.  The  practice  of  the  apoftles  is  farther  illu'ftrated  and 
confirmed  by  what  Paul  tells  the  Roman  and  Cololuan 
Chriftians,  with  refpect  to  what  took  place  when  they  re- 
ceived the  ordinance  of  baptifm.  He  fays  to  the  former, 
"  We  are  buried  with  him  by  baptifm-  into  death  :"  To  the 
other  he  fays,  "Buried  with  him  in  baptifm."  Paul  fpeaks 
of  this  matter  as  a  thing  perfectly  underftood  by  Chriftians 
in  his  time,  and  uied  it  as  an  argument  to  promote  their 
weanednefs  from  the  world,  and  growth  in  fanctiiication. 
But  have  you  not  either  palled  over  thefe  and  fimilar  palTages, 
without  noticing  them,  or  confidered  them  rather  hard  to 
be  underftood  ?  But  how  eafy  is  it  to  underftand  them, 
provided  the  apoftles  practifed  as  the  fcriptures  fay  they 
did  !  I  ftill  leave  it  with  ycu  to  determine  for  yourfelves 
how  the  apoftles  practifed. 

This  is  the  bell  evidence  which  the  nature  of  the  fubject 
admits.  This  matter,  the  apoftles'  practice,  was  tranfacted 
many  ages  fince.  We  have  the  teftimony  of  the  fcriptures 
as  to  what  it  was ;  this  is  evidence  enough  :  however,  we 
{hall  occafionally  add  the  teftimony  of  men. 

We  fhall  now  attend  to  the  practice  of  the  church,  and 
difcover,  if  we  can,  how  it  was  for  ages  after  the  apoftles. 
The  bell  evidence  which  this  part  of  my  fubject  admits  is 
that  of  human  teftimony.*     I  by  no  means  reft  the  merit 

*  Chrift's  promife  to  his  apoftles,  to  their  fucceflbrs,  and  to  the 
Church  may  allure  us  that  the  ordinance  of  baptifm,  by  which  h* 
people  Ihould  be  diftinguifhed  from  the  world,  would  ever  continue. 
Therefore  could  we  know  what  the  church  hath  always  practifed, 
efpecially  that  part  of  it  which  hath  been  mod  feparate  from  the  world, 
then  their  pra£tice  would  afford  a  llrong  argument  in  favour  of  wkat 
the  inllitution  intended. 


Serm.  III.]  of  Baptifm.  $\ 

of  the  caufe  on  this  evidence.  At  the  fame  time,  it  may 
weaken  the  prejudices  of  fome,  and  be  a  mean  of  confirm- 
ing others  in  the  belief  of  the  truth. 

It  appears  fo  plain  a  cafe  that  we  can  hardly  refufe  a/Tent 
to  it,  that  as  the  church  hath  for  a  feries  of  ages  practifed, 
fo  have  they  believed.  When  we  fhall  fee  what  their  prac- 
tice hath  been,  we  fhall  the  more  eafily  concede  that  their 
belief  hath  been  fimilar. 

What  is  now  before  us  is  to  produce  and  to  receive  evi- 
dence relative  to  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church.  It 
is  the  following  : — 

I.  This  evidence  confifts  in  the  united  teftimony  of  both 
thofe  who  practifed  the  admin  iftration  of  the  ordinance  by 
immerfion,  and  thofe  who  ufed  fprinkling,  and  called  it 
baptizing. 

Mofheim,  a  very  noted  church  hiftorian,  and  not  very 
friendly  to  the  Baptifts,  bears  direct  teftimony  that  John, 
Chrift's  forerunner,  and  the  church  in  the  firft  ages  of 
Chriftianity,  practifed  immerfion  as  the  mode  of  baptizing. 
The  following  you  may  take  as  a  fample  of  his  evidence, 
"  The  exhortations  of  this  refpectable  mefTenger  (John) 
were  not  without  effect,  and  thofe  who,  moved  by  his  folemn 
admonition,  had  formed  the  refolution  of  correcting  their 
evil  difpofitions  and  amending  their  lives,  were  initiated  into 
the  kingdom  of  the  Redeemer  by  the  ceremony  of  immer- 
fion, or  baptifm."* 

Speaking  of  the  church  in  the  fecond  century,  he  fays, 
"  The  perfons  that  were  to  be  baptized,  after  they  had  re- 
peated the  creed,  confeffed  and  renounced  their  fins,  and 
particularly  the  devil  in  his  pompous  allurements,  were 
immerfed  under  water,  and  received  into  Chrift's  kingdom 
by  a  folemn  invocation  of  Father.  Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft, 
according  to  the  exprefs  command  of  our  bleffed  Lord.f 

The  Doctor  fpeaking  of  fome  inferior  fects  of  the  feven- 
teenih  century,  and  particularly  of  a  feet  called  Collegiants, 
fays,  "  Thofe  adult  perfons,  that  defire  to  be  baptized,  re- 
ceive the  facrament  of  baptifm  according  to  the  ancient  and 
primitive  manner  of  celebrating  that  inftitution,  even  by 
immerfwn.,,\ 

Mr.  Bailey,  in  his  Etymological  Englifli  Dictionary,  fays, 
"  In  ancient  times,  this  (baptifm)  being  performed  by  im. 

*  Century  I.  chap,  iii.  feft.  3.      t  Cent.  II.  part  ii.  chap.  v.  feft.  ia. 
+  Vol.  v.  p.  488. 


32  The  Mode  and  Subjccls       [Serm.  III. 

merfion,  the  perfons  fo  initiated  went  into  a  river,  Sec.  and 
were  plunged." 

John  Calvin,  in  his  Injlilutions,  Book  IV.  chap.  xv.  feci. 
19,  fays,  "It  is  certain  that  the  manner  cf  dipping  was 
ufed  of  the  old  church." 

Here  are  three  fubftantial  wicnefTes.  Thefe  might  be 
fufficient,  feeing  there  is  not  one  to  be  found  who  will,  or 
dares,  give  direct  and  pofitive  teftimony  againft  the  truth 
of  what  thefe  affirm.  But  fince  there  are  an  hoft  who 
ftand  ready  to  give  in  their  teftimony,  even  againft  their 
own  practice,  we  will  hear  what  two  more  of  them  will  tef- 
tify  relative  to  the  important  caufe  now  on  trial. 

Thefe  two  fnall  be  Dr.  Cave  and  the  famous  Mr.  Baxter. 
Dr.  Cave,  a  great  fearcher  into  antiquity,  fays,  "  That 
the  party  baptized  was  wholly  immerfed,  or  put  under 
water,  which  was  the  common,  con/latit,  and  univerfal  cuftom 
of  thofe  times;  whereby  they  did  fignificantly  exprefs  the 
great  end  and  effects  of  baptifm,  reprefenting  Chrift's  death, 
burial  and  reiurrection,  and,  in  conformity  thereto,  our  dy- 
ing unto  fin,  the  deftruction  of  its  power,  and  our  refurrec- 
tion  to  a  new  courfe  of  life,"  &c* 

Moft  remarkable  is  the  teftimony  which  Mr.  Baxter  gives 
to  this  truth,  in  the  following  words  :  "  It  is  commonly 
confeffed  by  us  to  the  Baptifts,  (as  our  commentators  de- 
clare) that  in  the  apoftles'  time,  the  baptized  were  dipped 
over  head  in  water,  and  this  fignirieth  their  profeffion  both 
of  believing  the  burial  and  refurrection  of  Chrift,  and  of 
their  own  dying  unto  fin,  and  living,  or  rifmg  again  to  new- 
nefs  of  life,  or  being  buried  and  rifen  again  with  Chrift,  as 
the  apoftle  expoundeth  baptifm,  Col.  ii.  12,  and  Rom.  iv.  6. 
And  though  (faith  he)  we  have  thought  it  lawful  to  difufe 
the  manner  of  dipping  and  to  ufe  lefs  water,  yet  we  prefume 
not  to  change  the  ufe  and  fignification  of  it ;  fo  then  he 
that  fignally  profeffes  to  die  and  rife  again  in  baptifm  with 
Chrift,  doth  fignally  profefcfavitig  faith  and  repentance  ;  but 
this  do  all  they  that  are  baptized  according  to  the  apoftolic 
practice,  "f 

As  thefe  witneftes  teftify,  fo  do  all  learned  and  pious  men 
who  have  critically  attended  to  this  fubject,  and  afterwards 
given  in  any  direct  and  pofitive  evidence  upon  the  matter. 

*  Ten  Letters.        +  Ibid. 


Serm.  III.]  of  Baptifm.  33 

2.  Tha  evidence  as  to  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
chinch,  confifts  in  the  teftimony  of  men  to  this  truth,  that 
the  church  did  for  thirteen  hundred  years  praeliic  immer- 
fion,  fome  extreme  cafes  excepted. 

The  only  evidence  which  I  purpofe  to  give  in  fupport  of 
this  for  the  prefent,  is  the  teftimony  of  the  author  of  Ten 
Letters  to  Biihop  Hoadly  upon  the  mode  and  fubjects  of 
baptifm,  and  the  confeflion  of  Dr.  Lathrop  that  it  was 
even  fo. 

The  author  of  the  Letters  aflerts  that  this  vras  the  practice 
of  the  church  for  thirteen  hundred  years  after  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Chriitian  era.  Dr.  Lathrop  aflents  that 
this  was  the  fact  ;  as  you  may  fee,  by  reading  his  four  fer- 
mons  on  baptifm,  where  he  gives  thefe  letters  a  particular 
attention,  and  is  fuppofed  to  affent,  where  he  makes  no 
objection. 

3.  All  the  churches  in  Europe,  Afia  and  Africa,  ever 
have  done,  and  do  now,  praclife  immerilon,  fave  thofe  who 
are  now,  or  have  been,  under  the  jurifdiction  of  the  Pontiffs 
of  Rome. 

The  fame  witneffcs  who  bore  their  teftimony  to  the  laft 
particular,  give  in  their  evidence  in  fupport  of  this,  and  in 
the  fame  way  ;  the  one  aflerting  the  facl:,  the  other  aflenting 
that  it  is  even  fo. 

4.  The  very  reafons  which  have  been  given  and  which 
are  flill  given  to  juftify  the  contrary  practice,  are  a  plain 
confeflion  that  immernon,  or  burying  the  fubjects  under 
water,  was  the  practice  of  the  apoftles  and  primitive  church 
in  the  ordinance  of  baptifm,  and  what  Chrift  commanded 
to  be  done. 

The  reafons  which  are  alleged  why  fprinkling  may  be 
fiibftituted  for  immerflon,  are,  the  want  of  health,  in  fome 
inftances  where  they  fuppofe  baptifm  to  be  neceflary  ;  the 
weaknefs  of  cdnftitution  with  refpect  to  fome,  and  the  cold- 
nefs  of  climate  with  refpect  to  many,  and  as  to  all  irj  north- 
ern climes  in  the  v.intry  feafon.  Here  is  a  filent  acknowl- 
edgment, that  it  is  not  the  iniluution,  that  it  is  not  the 
permuLon  of  Chrift,  but  mere  accidental  and  local  circum- 
ftauces,  which  make  it  lawful  to  lay  by  the  command  of 
Chrift,  and  to  receive  in  its  ftead  the  precepts  and  com- 
mandments of  men. 

Mr.  Bailey  fays,  in  his  Dictionary,  that  baptifm  was 
performed  in  the  eafteru,  and  warmer  countries  by  dipping 


34  The  Mode  and  Subjects       [Scrm.  III. 

the  perfons  all  over ;  but  in  procefs  of  time,  in  the  wcStern 
and  colder  countries,  Sprinkling  was  Substituted  in  the  place 
of  dipping. 

Dr.  Lathrop  in  his  fermons  implicitly  confeSfes  the  fol- 
lowing extracts  to  be  both  true  and  genuine. 

Mr.  Baxter,  in  his  Paraphrafe  on  the  Neiv-Tejlamenty  ob- 
ferves  on  Matth.  iii.  6.  "  We  grant  that  baptifm  then  was 
by  waihing  the  whole  body  ;  and  did  not  the  difference  of 
our  cold  country,  as  to  that  hot  one,  teach  us  to  remember, 
'  I  will  have  mercy  and  not  faciificc,'  it  fhould  be  lb  here." 

The  author  of  the  Letters  to  Bjjlop  Hoadly*  in  the  twenty- 
third  page,  writes  thus:  "  Mr.  Baxter,  we  have  already 
feen,  excufes  the  matter  by  the  coldnefs  of  our  climate. 
Calvin,  the  celebrated  reformer  of  Geneva,  obferves  in  his 
Exposition  of  Acls  viii.  38,  *  We  fee  here  what  was  the  bap- 
tifmal  rite  among  the  ancients,  for  they  plunged  the  whole 
body  in  the  water.'  Now  it  is  the  cuStom  for  the  miniflcr 
to  fprinkle  only  the  body  or  head,  and  he  too  excufes  this 
fprinkling,  but  how,  I  cannot  well  recoiled,  net  having  his 
book  at  hand." 

Bifhop  Burnet  though  he  thus  defcribes  the  primitive 
baptifm,  "With  no  other  garments  but  that  might  feive 
to  cover  nature,  they  at  firft  laid  them  down,  as  a  man  is 
laid  in  the  grave,  and  then  they  faid  thefe  words,  1  baptize, 
or  wafli,  thee  in  the  name,  &c.  Then  they  raifed  them  up 
again,  and  clean  garments  were  put  upon  them  ;  fiom 
whence  came  the  phrafes  of  being  baptized  into  Chrilt's 
death,  of  being  buried  with  him  by  baptifm  into  death,  of 
our  being  rifen  with  Chiift,  and  of  cur  putting  on  the  Lord 
Jefus  Chrift ;  of  putting  off  the  old  man,  and  putting  on 
the  new," — and  though  he  juStly  obferves  that  Sacraments 
are  pofitive  precepts,  which  are  to  be  meafured  only  by  the 
inftitution,  in  which  there  is  not  room  left  for  us  to  carry 
them  any  farther ; — yet  forgetting  his  own  meafure  of  the 
institution,  viz.  the  party  baptized  was  laid  down  in  the 
water,  as  a  man  is  laid  in  the  grave,  he  fays,  "  The  danger 
in  cold  climates  may  be  a  very  good  real'on  for  changing 
the  form  of  baptifm  to  iprinkling. 

I  propofe  for  the  prefent  to  note  but  one  quotation  more, 
and  that  Shall  be  in  the  words  of  Dr.  Wall,  as  quoted  in 
the  Letters.      The   Doctor   in  giving  the  reafons  why,   in 

*  Burner's  Exposition  of  the  Thirty-nine  articles. 


Serm.  III.]  of  Baptifm.  3$ 

Queen  Elizabeth's  reign,  the  cuftom  of  dipping  was  laid 
afide,  obferves,  "It  being  allowed  to  weak  children  to  be 
baptized  by  aiTufion,  many  found  ladies  and  gentlemen  firft, 
and  then,  by  degrees,  the  common  people,  would  obtain 
the  favour  of  the  prieft  to  have  their  children  pafs  for  weak 
children,  too  tender  to  endure  dipping  in  the  water."*    Now, 

6.  It  may  be  eafy  for  you  to  gather  what  is  the  outward 
and  vilible  part  of  the  ordinance  of  baptifm. 

It  is  to  immerfe  proper  fubjects  in  water,  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghoft.  This 
is  the  outward  and  vifible  part  of  baptifm,  the  fcriptures 
being  judge  ;  this  Hteral  and  plain  meaning  of  the  command 
being  judge  ;  the  practice  of  the  apoftles  being  judge  ;  the 
practice  of  the  church  for  more  than  a  thoufand  years  bejng 
judge  ;  and  even  if  we  appeal  to  thofe  who  refufe  to  prac- 
tife  thus,  they  add  their  testimony,  that  it  is  what  was  com- 
manded. They  pretend  not  to  fay  that  any  new  command 
hath  been  given,  or  that  the  old  one  hath  ever  been  changed. 
What  (hall  we  fay  to  thefe  things  !  !  ! 

I  conclude  by  fubmitting  a  queftion,  and  a  few  inferences, 
for  your  confideration. 

The  queftion  is,  If  immerfion  be  from  heaven,  and 
fprinkling  from  men,  by  what  authority  do  we  continue 
the  practice  ? 

The  inferences  are — 

1.  We,  who  call  curfelves  Pedobaptifts,  are  as  a  houfe 
divided  againft  itfelf.  To  fay  the  leaft,  we  appear  thus. 
Our  champions  will  look  us  in  the  face,  and  affure  us,  that 
the  Baptifts  have  plain  fcripture  for  their  mode,  and  yet  we 
have  a  right  to  choofe  on  the  fcore  of  convenience,  &c.  what 
mode  is  pleating  to  us.  Thus  fay  Calvin,  Hoadly,  Owen, 
and  others  :  whilft  in  their  practice  they  have  been,  in  this 
inltance,  like  the  fervant  who  knew,  but  did  not  his  lord's 
will.  Thefe  good  men  have  confeffed  rather  too  much  for 
the  credit  of  their  practice,  and  our  comfort  while  copying 
it.  Many,  however,  have  rifen  up  in  defence  of  our  fathers' 
practice  and  ours.  They  invent  many  ingenious  hypothefes 
to  prove  it  from  heaven,  but  not  one  affords  a  folid  conclu- 
fion  which  fhows  it  to  be  fo. 

2.  According  to  the  light  which  for  the  prefent  appears, 
we  cannot  but  conclude  that  our  definitions  of  baptifm  and 

*  Vol.  II.  F.  30.  1  Ed. 


36  The  Mode  and  Subjecls       [Serm.  III. 

to  baptize  are  fcriptural,  accurate  and  juft.     If  we  will  do 
the  will  of  God,  we  mult  praclife  what  he  commands. 

3.  It  appears  that  it  is  not  left  with  us  to  choofe  what 
mode  we  will  practife  in  adminiftering  or  in  receiving  the 
ordinance  of  baptifm  ;  for  we  rind  but  one  mode  to  it :  and 
we  muft  praftiie  this,  or  none.  We  may  fprinkle  a  perfon 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  &c.  and  we  may  wafh  the  face, 
or  any  part  of  a  perfon,  in  the  fame  facred  name  ;  but  it  is 
not  pofllble  to  baptize  a  perfon  in  this  way  ;  for  fprinkling, 
or  any  fmall,  partial  walhing  never  was,  is  not  now,  nor 
ever  will  be,  what  the  fcriptures  mean  by  Chriftian  baptifm. 

4.  That  a  perfon  muft  be  greatly  unacquainted  with  the 
plain,  literal,  fcripture  account  of  baptifm,  or  extremely 
prejudiced,  not  to  fay  perverfe,  to  affirm  that  the  Bible  fays 
nothing  about  immerfion,  or  burying  in  water  for  baptizing. 
For  it  fpeaks  of  this  mode,  and  of  no  other,  in  the  applica- 
tion of  water  as  a  gofpel  ordinance. 

The  Baptifts  have  for  their  mode  the  broad  bafts  of fcrip- 
ture, antiquity,  and  the  uninterrupted,,  and  fomewhat  uni- 
verfal  practice  of  the  church. 

5.  It  appears  that  for  well-informed  Pedobaptifts  to  op- 
pofe  the  Baptifts,  as  to  their  mode  cf  baptizing,  is  very 
great  wickednefs.  For  the  Baptifts  have  the  advantage  of 
plain  and  exprefs  fcripture  on  their  fide,  and  the  learned, 
critical  and  candid  Pedobaptifts  know  it. 

Ignorance  is  the  beft  and  only  excufe  which  we  can  make 
for  ourfelves  for  any  oppofition  which  we  have  made  againft 
the  ancient  and  primitive  mode  which  the  Baptills  have 
pradYifed  in  the  adminiftration  of  the  ordinance.  Our  con- 
tention in  this  matter  hath  not  been  againft  the  Baptifle 
merely,  but  it  hath  been  againft  their  Lord  and  ours. 

Dr.  Lathrop  appears  generoufiy  to  grant  the  truth,  that 
immerfion  is  fcripture  baptifm,  and  only  contends  that 
fprinkling  be  alfo  allowed  ;  which  every  candid  mind 
would  readily  do,  were  there  one  text  of  fcripture  to  fup- 
port  it. 

6.  No  true  Chriftian,  if  he  knew  what  he  did,  would" 
ever  make  light  of  immerfion,  which  the  Lord  commands, 
and  the  Baptifts  praftife,  as  the  mode  of  baptizing,  or,  more 
frri&ly,  as  baptiftfj  itfelf. 


Serm.  I  V.J  of  Baptifm. 


SERMON   IV. 

MATTHEW  xxviii.  19,  20. 

Go  yc,  therefore,  and  ieach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  tL 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Gho/f  /  h 
them  to  obferve  all  things  ivhatfoever  I  have  commanded  you  : 
si tid,  lo,  I  am   with  you   aliuay,  even   unto  the  end  of  the 
world.      Amen. 

HILST  difcourfing  to  you  upon  thefe  words,  I 
have,  as  I  fuppofe,  proved  to  you  what  is  the  out- 
ward and  viable  part  of  baptifm.  You  have,  to  appearance, 
given  a  ferious  and  folemn  attention,  and,  1  hope,  a  candid 
one,  to  what  halh  been  faid. 

All  which  I  afk  of  you  in  this  matter  is,  that  you  in  the 
fpirit  of  meeknefs  hear  the  whole,  and  then  judge  and  prac- 
tife  in  fuch  a  manner  as  you  cannot  refufe  to  do,  without 
doing  violence  to  your  reafon,  and  without  diiobedience  to 
the  command  of  Heaven. 

Some  of  you  may  be  afraid  of  difcord  ;  but  whence,  I 
pray  you,  will  difcord  arife  among  brethren  ?  Will  a  can- 
did, prayerful  and  felf-denying  attention  to  truth  caufe  this 
feared  difcord  ?  Hath  truth  a  tendency  to  produce  difcord 
among  the  faithful  followers  of  the  Lamb  of  God  ?  I  know 
that  once,  when  Chrift  preached  the  doctrines  of  the  crofs, 
multitudes  of  profeffing  difciples  went  back,  and  followed 
no  more  with  him.  1  hope  it  will  not  be  thus  with  any  of 
you.  But,  my  brethren,  however  it  may  be  with  any  of 
you,  one  thing  is  clear — I  ought,  I  muft  declare  to  you,  io 
fall  as  I  profitably  can,  all  thofe  truths  of  God  which 
appear  necelTary  to  build  you  up  in  found  faith  and  holy 
practice. 

As  I  have  faid  before,  {o  fay  I  Unto  you  again,  that  all 
■which  1  afk  of  you  is,  to  give  truth  a  candid  hearing,  and 
yield  youraffent,  when  facts  are  plain!/  proved. 

Nothing  fhould,  by  me,  be  thought  too  much  to  be  done, 
$o  clear  away  from  your  minds  the  darknefs  of  prejudice, 
together  with  any  erroneous  belief  and  practice  which  you 


cS  The  Mode  and  Subjects       [Serm.  IV. 

may  have  imbibed,  in  part,  by  my  means.  I  fhall,  there- 
fore, in  this  difcourfe,  after  having  aUended  to  the  purport, 
end  or  defign  of  bartilm,  anfwer  fome  objections,  which 
may  ibr  die  prefeut  cbftruct  the  force  of  truth. 

Before  we  proceed  to  the  particular  bufinefs  of  this  dif- 
courfe, you  will,  if  you  pleaie,  attend  for  a  minute  to  a  few 
queftions  and  their  anfwers. 

i.  Is  it  not  a  plain  cafe,  that  it  is  my  duty  to  deliver 
to  you  the  whole  ccunfel  of  God,  according  to  the  beft  light 
it  may  pleafe  him  to  afford  me? 

2.  Is  it  not  equally  plain,  that  your  duty  is  to  yield,  not 
to  me,  bat  to  the  Bruths  which  I  deliver,  an  obedient  ear  ? 

«,  Should  you,  from  an  uncandid  and  prejudiced  mind, 
refufe  to  be  converted  by  the  truth,  will  ..he  fault  be  mine  ? 

4.  Should  I  exhibit  full  evidence,  as  to  the  fubjecl  oa 
land,  and  exhibit  that  evidence  clearly  too,  or  fhould  it  be 
that  I  have  done  this,  and  yet  great  difficulties  fhould  arifs, 
v.  ill  you  be  juilified  fhould  you  lay  the  blame  to  me  ? 

5.  -Should  I  teach  you  the  truth,  and  produce  all  the 
evidence   which  you  can   afk  for,  and  you   fhould,  all,  like 

ul  Christians,  believe  it,  where  or  whence  will  arife  any 
difficulty  among  us?  Should  any  of  you  refufe  to  believe, 
will  yon  charge  your  difficulties  to  my  account  ? 

'6.  Are  not  all  of  you  determined  that  you  will  hear 
candidly,  and  believe  upon  evidence  ? 

You  \.ill  pleafe  to  give  a  Chriftian  and  judicious  anfwer 
to  c-,.c]i  of  thefe  queftions,  and.  let  y<  ur  practice  be  conform- 
ed with  ihegofpel  of  our  Lord  TefusGhrift. 

Having  laid  before  you  the  principal  part  of  the  faols 
and  evidence,  wliich  I  intended,  as  to  the  vifihl'e  and  out- 
ward part  of  baptifm,  now— 

Lqftlj.  The  purport,  end  and  defign  of  the  Baptifmal 
Institution  may  call  for  fome  attention. 

The  purport,  end  or  defign  of  this  Chriftian  ordinance^ 
or  inflitution,  appears  to  be — 

1.  For  a  dividing  line  between  the  kingdom 'of  cur 
Lord,  and  the  kingdoms  of  this  world. 

John  was  Chrift's  forerunner  :  he  was  fent  before  his 
'.<  ce  to  turn  the  hearts  of  the  fathers  to  the  children,  and  the 
difobedient  to  .the  wifdem  of  the  juft  :  to  make  ready  a  peo- 
>>  prepared  for  the  Lord  ;*  and  that  Chrift  fhould  be  mad? 


' 


*~        *  L^ 


Senn.  IV.]  of  Baph  39 

manifed  to  Ifrael,  therefore,  fays  Jolin,   an  I  com:  bap'.' 
ing  with  water.*     John's  million   comprehended  a.   d  aM- 
purpofe,  to  make  ready  a  people,   prepared  for  the  Lord, 
and  to  manifest  Him  unto  [frael.     The  people  which  he.  in- 
ftrumeatally  made  ready,  and  pteparod  to  receive  the  Lord, 
he  bapti .:.ed  ;  and  it  appear!  from  his  rejecting  many  of  the 
Pharilbes  and   Sadducees,   thit  he   intentionally    baptized 
none   other.f     The   whole   difcoarfe  which   he   had    with 
them,  Matt.  iii.  7  to'12,  is  good   evident  that  he  admitted 
none   to  baptii'm  but:  fuch  as  brought  forth  viable  fruits  vt 
Repentance.     Such  perfons  he  admitted  among  that  peoplo 
ch  he  was  making  ready  for  the  Lord.     This  people 
re,  when  prepared^  tocorripofe  that  kingdom,  ex  the  be- 
ginning of  th.it   kingdom,  which  fhall  never  be   deftroyedj 
and  which  is  an  everlailing  kingdom,  which  fka!l  ftand  for. 
ever  ;  Daniel  ii.  44.  and  vii.  27.     This  kingdom  Chrift  calls 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  fays,  it  is  not  of  this  world. 
It  appears  to  be  this  kingdom,  which  was  iio.v  at  hand, 
almofl  ready  to  be  fet  up,  of  which  Chi  ill  fpeaks  to  Niccde- 
rr.us,  when  he  fays,  John  iii.  c.  Except  a  man  be  born  of 
v/ater  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  eater  into  the  kingdom 
of  God. 

All  this  does,  for  rabftance,  meet  the  fentiment  of  Bap* 
tirts  and  Pedobaptifts  on  this  fubjefc.  Bqth  fuppofe,  lhat 
none  can  belong  to  this  kingdom  without  being  born  <  t 
water,  or  baptized.  Doth  fuppofe  that  men  may  prcfeffed- 
ly,  or  viiibly,  belong  to  this  kingdom,  without  being  born 
of  the  Spirit :  but,  perhaps,  neither  the  Baptifts,  nor  Pedo- 
baptids,  would  fay,  that  any  do,  ftrict" y  fpeaking,  belong 
to  th:s  kingdom,  except  they  have  bten  born  of  valor  and 
of  th:-  Spirit  Our  Lord  faith,  Verily,  verily,  except  a  man 
be  b:>rn  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  licaven.  If  a  man  cannot  enter  into  this  king- 
dom but  in  this   way,  he  cannot   belong  to  it  in  any   otl 

Both  fides  grant,  that  baptifm,  or  to  be  born  of  water,  is 
the  only  way  of  admittance  into  this  kingdom.  They  are 
.not  fo  well  agreed  as  to  what  it  is  to  be  born  of  water, 
Whe  her  it  be  to  be  fprinkled,  warned,  or  immerfed.  Ccn- 
\ern'ng  this  matter  you  mtift  judge  for  yotitielves. 

Tnis  being  a  given  point,  that  the  defign  of  baptifm  is, 
yat  it  fliould  be  for  a  dividing  line  between  that  kingdom, 

*  John  i.  31.  +  Man.  J: 


4»  *         '    '         [Serm.  IY. 

•  of  heaveti  wsi  ;  -  day, 

,    J  would  fnggeit  i'cv  j  ion — 

ii  tween 
<  on  earth  ;    to  enter  it 

buried 
i   this 
'   m  ? 
I  wi       •  one  thing  mor^ 

Whii  ■ 

- 
.  To  ha\  .  in  infancy  , 

water  put 
rt  of  them  livi 
wickednefs,    or  ,    and  unn  y   the 

or,  to  have 
vers,  and  thc!^  ad 
in  a  way  v  itly  fay?,  that  they  turn  their  backs 

upon  the  world  ;  yea,  that  they  are  dead  to  the  world,  and 
are  rifen  v  .     I  only  fuggeft  this  for  your  confider- 

ation.     I  hope  to  attend  to  it  in  ics  place,  but  not  to-day. 

2.  The  purport,  end  or  defign  of  baptifm  appears  to  be 
fcr  a  manifeftation,  that  the  fuhjecls  of  it  have  forfaken  all, 
y( -s,  their  own  lives,  for  Chrift's  fake  and  the  gofpel. 

How  can  this  be  more  vifibly  manifefted,  than  by  being 
buried  with  him  in  baptifm  ?  How  can  a  man  more  vifibly 
forfake  all,  than  he  does  when  buried  ?  How  can  any  one 
more  manifeftly  forfake  his  own  life  for  another,  than  by 
voluntarily  If  into  the  hands  of  another 

to  be  buried  alive  i 

Is  not.  this  :v  *     i  what  Chrift  fauh,  Whofoever  he 

be  of  you  that  forfhketh  not  all  that  he  hath,  he   cannot  be 
my  diiciple  ? 

3  It  appears  to  be  for  a  feprefentation  of  our  being 
■wafhed  from  our  fins  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb. 

John,  the  revelator,  faith,  fpeaking  of  Jefus  Chrift,  the 

faithful  v.irnels,   "  Unto  him  1  us,  and  waihed  us 

ins  own   blood."     This  is  a  figurative   ex- 

predion,  £h<     i  once  the  procuring  caufe,  the  blood  cl 

Chrift,  and  th'e  \  our  fouls  purged  from 

:  God.     C;t.  any  natural 
refent   tt.i     more  felly,   than  does  baptifin,  in  which 
bodies  are  tvaihed  with  pure  water? 


Serm.  IV.]  of  Baptifm.  4» 

4.  The  purport,  end  or  defign  of  this  Chriftian  ordi- 
nance appears  to  be  for  the  promotion  of  piety  in  individu- 
als, and  purity  in  the  church. 

What  can  have  a  flronger  tendency  to  move  the  heart  of 
a  Chriilian  to  piety  and  wear.ednefs  from  the  worlds  than 
has  the  inftitution   of  baptifm  ?    Seein;-    at  rifcem- 

brance  of  it,  he  is  put  in  mind,  now  Chrift  died  for  Jin, 
and  how  everyone  •  n  baptized, 

has  by  the  ordia  buried  from 

the  world,  and  tin   to  riewnefs  of  life.     Hath  not 

this  ordinance  alio  an  equally  ttrong  tendency  to  preferve 
the  purity  «  f  the  church,  fliould  it  be  adminiftered  as  we 
have  proved  it  ought  to  he,  by  immerfion  only  ?  And  mould 
another  thing  be  found  to  be  true,  that  vifible  believers  only 
fhouldbe  admitted  to  it,  what  a  world  of  unbelievers  would 
this  ihut  out  of  the  church !  How  differently  would  the 
profeffed  church  of  Jefus  Chrit't  aj 
does  ! 

If  my  information  be  correct,  every  natural  horn   f 
of  the  crown  of  England  is,  according  to  tl 
national  church,  to  be  baptized,  and  immediately 
as  a  member- of  the  church.     This  is,  indeed,  conlift 
all  the  parents  have,  in  any  pad  p  led  to  '■ 

the  Chriilian  religion,  and  if  baptifm  have  come  into  the 
place  of  circumcifion,  and  io  be  adminiftered  to  children; 
and  infants,  as  that  wis. 

Not  only  fo,  but  probably  nine-tenths  of  the  inhabitants 
of  New-England,  if  not  of  cur  nation,  belong  to  the  church, 
according  to  the  profeffed  belief  of  the*Pedobaptifts.  Upon 
the  fame  principle  I  preiurhe  that  more  than  three-fourth^ 
of  all  the  adults  in  this  and  the  neighbouring  towns  belong 
to  the  church,  and  have,  if  the  principle  be  according  to  the 
gofpel,  a  right  to  require  admittance  to  the  Lord's  Si 
and  baptifm  for  their  children.  Then,  upon  the  fame  prin- 
ciple, would  their  children  be  members  of  the  church, 
entitled  to  all  the  privileges  of  God's  houfe,  as  they  cor.^e 
to  years,  and  nothing  fhort  of  grofs  immorality  could  jufU- 
fy  their  exclufion.  Does  this  look  as  though  Chrift  king- 
dom were  not  of  this  world  ? 

5.  The  purport,  end  or  defgn  of  h  tptifm  appeal's  t :  he 
well  defcribed  by  Dr.  Goodwin,  in  the  following  word-  : 
"The  eminent  thing  fignified  and  d  in  baptifm  h 

Da 


42  The  Mule  and  Subjects        [Serm.  IV. 

not  fiflgly  the  blood  of  Chrift,  as  it  avq/lrs  us  from  our  fin?, 
but  there  is  a  further  reprcfentation  therein  of  (Shrift's  death, 
burial  and  refurreclion,  in  the  baptized  :  and  this  is  not  in  a 
hire  conformity  to  Chrift,  but  is  a  representation  of  a  com- 
munion with  Chi  ill  in  his  death  and  refurrection  ;  th-. 
it  is  faid,  We  are  b'Jiied  with  him  in  baptifm,  and  wl 
we  are  rifen  with  him,  &c.  And  moreover,  here  it  is  that 
file  anfwer  of  a  good  confeience,  which  is  made  the  inward 
effect  of  this  ordinance,  I  Peter  iii.  21,  is  there  alio  attribu- 
ted to  Chrift's  refur  reft  ion,  as  the  thing  Signified  and  rep- 
refented  in  baptifm  ;  and  as  the  caufe  of  that  anfwer  of  a 
good  confeience,  even  baptifm  doth  now  {ji\e  us,  as  it  is  a 
figure  of  falvation  by  Chrift." 

6.  The  purport,  end  or  defign  of  the  ordinance  appears 
to  be  to  point  out,  or  fhadow  fo:th,-  th;  fcrgivenefs  or  re- 
miffion  of  fins,  and  the  being  cleaned  from  then;.  Hence 
the  propriety  of  Scripture  expreflions,  which  are  like  the  fol- 
lowing :  The  baptifm  of  repentance  for  the  remiflion  of  fins, 
Marl  i.  4.  Arife  and  be  baptized,  and  wafh  away  thy  fins, 
j43s  xxii.  16.  Here  it  is  worthy  of  the  critical  reader's 
notice,  that  the  word  translated,  <wcjh  away,  i»  apolouj'aiy 
■which  Signifies  to  wafh  clean,  or  to  wafh  out  a  Main,  a 
as  to  wafh  away.  It  is  alfo  worthy  to  be  obferved,  that  the 
word  loud,  whence  this  is  derived,  is  the  t  nly  word,  or  theme, 
fave  baptize,  which,  in  the  New-Teftamenr,  fignifies  to  wafh 
the  body.  This  being  well  considered,  it  cannot  be  doubt- 
ed, but  bapiifm  is  a  moft  Significant  reprefentation  of  the 
remiffion  of  fin,  or  cleanfing  from  it. 

Lajlly.  The  purport,  en  J  and  deiigtl  of  the  ordinance  of 
baptifm  appears  to  be,  for  an  open  and  manifeft  declaration 
that  thofe  who  receive  it,  do  heartily,  and  of  a  ready  mind, 
put  on  Chrift,  enter  into  his  fervi«es  receive  him  to  be  their 
Prophet,  Prieft  and  King,  end  covenant  to  be  for  him,  and 
for  him  only.  Accordingly  it  is  faid,  As  many  ab 
baptized  into  Chrift,  have  put  on  Chrift  :  They  have  put  on 
his  name,  his  felf-denymg  piofeilion,  his  iuffcring,  defpifed, 
but  glorious  cauie. 

Is  the  purport,  end  and  defign  of  baptifm  as  hath  been 
now  ftated  ?  then  the  mode  is  immerfion  ;  and  thofe  who 
change  the  ordinance  from  dipping  to  fprinkilng,  and  apply  it 
to  unbelievers,  pervert  the  ordinance,  lefe  :ts  import,  and 
make  it  quite  another  thing.  This  we  have,  for  years,  ig- 
Rorantly  done. 


Serm.  IV.]  of  Baptifm.  43 

We  will  now  attend  to  to  the  arguments,  which  the. 
late  Rev.  John  Cleaveland  hath  left  us  in  fupport  of  fprink- 
Hng,  as  being  authentic  baptifm.  This  Mr.  Cleaveland  was, 
and  I  believe  juflly  too,  eileemed  as  one  of  the  mod  pious 
and  faithful  fervants  of  Chrift.  Whilfl  I  was  favoured 
with  a  perfonal  acquaintance  with  him,  he  flood  very  high 
in  my  eftimation,  for  his  unaffected  piety,  and  fervent  fim- 
■••,  as  a  preacher  of  the  everlaftinggofpel.  I  iljll  retain" 
the  fame  opinion  of  the  good  man.  But  great  and  good 
men  are  not  always  wife.  In  any  inflance  \\1iere  their  wif- 
dpm  hath  failed  them,  we  fhould  be  careful  how  we  follow. 
'i  he  Bereans  would  not  take  Paul  for  a  guide,  without  firft 
bringing  him  to  the  ftandard  of  divine  truth.  The  Bereans 
were  juitined.  Should  we  treat  Mr.  C.  in  the  fame  way, 
he  could  not,  and  I  am  inclined  to  think,  he  would  not, 
though  he  were  living,  condemn  us.  I  might  let  his  works 
and  arguments  in  fupport  of  fprinkb'ng,  iieep,  were  it  not, 
that  fome  of  you,  my  people,  and  perhaps  others,  may  by 
them,  in  one  particular,  be  kept  from  beholding  Chrift,  as 
in  an  open  glafs. 

The  good  man's  object  was,  to  prove  that  baptifm  by 
fprinkling  is  authentic,  or  is  fcriptural ;  or  that  ip:  inkling 
is  baptifm. 

I  will  now  lay  before  you  his  fuppofed  ftrong  arguments 
by  which  he  fupports  the  validity  of  fprinkling  for  baptiz- 
ing. Alter  ftating  the  principles  of  the  Baptifts,  as  to  the 
ordinance  now  conhderin;.;',  his 

j  It.  Argument  is,  "Their  learned  men  know  that  the 
word  baptizo  in  Luke  xi.  38,  and  lapiifmuus  in  Mark  vii.  2 
— 5,  are  ufed  to  fignify  the  lame  as  nipto  is,  i.  e.  proper 
walhing,  or  making  cle;-:;'.  by  the  application  of  water,  in 
cafes  that  do  not  neceffarily  require  dipping  as  the  mode  of 
walking."  The  anfwer  to  this  is :  That  neither  the  learned 
men  among  the  Baptifts,  nor  the  learned  among  any  otner 
clals  of  men,  know  any  luch  thing.  Beftdes,  baptl/lhe,  in 
Luke,  and  baptifmous,  in  Mark,  have  reference  to,  and  mean, 
a  ceremonial,  a  religious,  or  ratier,  as  may  be  more  prop- 
erly called  in  thefe  inftances,  a  fuperititious  walhing.  What 
is  meant  by  a  ceremonial  waihing,  you  may  fee  by  looking 
into  the  ceremonial  law  :  Levif.  xi.  32,  and  in  Numb.  xix. 
1 9,  where  you  will  find  that  this  ceremonial  walhing  was, 
to  put  into  water,  or  to  bathe  one's  fiefh  in  water.  You 
hence  fee  that  theie  two  pafiages,  with  which  Mr.  Cleave- 


44  The  Mode  and  Subjects        [Serm.  IV. 

land  lays  the  foundation  ofhis  fupport  of  fprinkling  for  bap- 
tifin,  utterly  fail  him,  and  come  in  as  auxiliaries  to  confirm 
immerfion  as  the  only  fcripture  baptilm.  I  will  not  fay 
that  nipto  is  never  ufed  to  lignify  ceremonial  wafhing,  and 
fo  intend  the  wafhing,  or  putting  the  hands  into  water, 
(pugmc)  with  abundance  of  exaclnefs,  as  Dr.  Doddridge  ex- 
pounds it,  or  up  to  the  elbows,  as  L'Enfant  renders  it. 
But  one  thing  is  evident  to  all  who  will  examine  the  texts, 
and  compare  them  with  the  ceremonial  wafhings  of  the  cer- 
emonial law,  in  conformity  with  which  the  Jewifh  doctors 
meant  to  have  their  traditional  ceremonies,  that  bapi'i-zo  and 
baptifmos  are  not  ufed  in  the  fenfe  in  which  nipto  generally 
is.  In  every  point  of  view,  Mr.  Cleaveland's  texts  utterly 
fail  him,  and  go  to  deftroy  the  cuftom  or  tradition  he 
brought  them  to  fupport.  Befides,  I  do  not  find  that  bap. 
tivd  is  ufed,  in  any  place,  for  wafhing  the  hands,  or  for 
wafhing  or  dipping  a  part  of  the  body,  or  any  other  thing. 
Mr.  Cleaveland's 

2d.  Argument  is  built  upon  Hebre ws  ix.  10.  where  the 
Apoftle  fpeaks  of  (diaphorois  laptijmou)  divers  waih 
Here,  where  die  Apoitie  is  fpeaking  of  divers  ceremonial 
wafhings,  or  bathings,  Mr.  Cleaveland,  without  the  3ea!l  poi- 
fible  evidence,  concludes  the  Apoftie  means  divers  Jbrink- 
lings. 

The  fame  anfwer  which  was  given  to  the  firft  argument 
belongs  to  this,  as  Mr.  Cleaveland  has  produced  no  evidence, 
that  (baptifmois )  waihings^  or  bathings,  means  fprinklings, 
lave  that  in  the  13th  and  21ft  verfes.  The  Apciile  make:; 
ufe  of  the  word  fprinkle,  when  fpeaking  of  the  application 
of  blood,  and  fpeaking  of  the  unclean,  lays,  they  are  ratitiz- 
td,  and  adds,  almoft  all  things  are  by  the  law  purged,  cath- 
tr'ized,  not  baptised,  with  blood.  It  is  net  a  little  furprifing 
that  a  man  of  Mr.  Cleaveland's  good  fenfe  fhould  fay,  and 
that  Dr.  Lathrop,  and  ether  men  of  erudition,  fhould  fol- 
low him,  in  faying,  thefe  different  fprinklings,  in  the  13th 
and  2 1 11  vtifes,  refer  to  baptifmois,  when,  had  they  looked 
three  words  farther,  they  would  have  found  them  to  be,  Lai 
dikaiomafi  farhos,  the  liberal  Engliih  of  which  is,  "  The  ordi- 
nances of  God  concerning  the  ceremonial  rites  of  bloody 
facrifices!"  Had  they  looked  into  their  Greek  teitaments, 
they  might,  with  eafe,  have  feen  that  their  argument  would 
not  bear  examination.  Surely,  had  thefe  gentlemen  had 
the  right  of  the  queftion,  they  never  would  have  compelled 


Serai.  IV.]  of  Bap!.  45 

the  Apoflle  to  explain  by  the  fprinkling  of  bloedf,  what  he 
meant  by  bathings  or  wafhings  with  write 
more  forced  expofition  of  fcripture  is  feldom  beard.     B  .»- 
fides,  the  Apoflle  told  them,  by  placing  whac  is  tranflateJ, 
carnal  ordinances,  between  divers  in  the  iotl 

fprinkling  in  the  13th  and  21ft   verfes,  that  he  intended  no 
fuch  thing  as  they  fiippofed.     If  I  miftake  not,  Mr.  C's. 

3d.  Argument  is  an  attempt  to  prove  that  bapu 
ire  ufed  to  fignify  fornething  more  than  to  dip,  put 
'into  water,  &c.  When  the  good  man  brought  forward  his 
argument  he  forgot — Sec. — which  belongs  to  his  quotation 
from  Dr.  Gale,  and  which  includes  imm'erfiort  and 
whelming,  and  which  compriie.-  the  whole  which  Mr.  C. 
has  proved  that  baptizo  fignifies.  But,  waving  his  forget- 
fulnefs,  we  will  attend  to  what  he  fays.  All  which  he  ap- 
pears to  do  here  is,  to  ihow  that  bapto,  or  baptizo,  are  ufed 
to  walh,  dip  and  wet  with  fprinkling  the  dew  from  heaven, 
and  to  overwhelm.  That  is,  bapto  fignifies  to  dip,  put  into 
water,  wet  with  the  dew  of  heaven,  &c.  and  baptizo  fignifies 
to  dip,  put  into  water  and  overwhelm.  What  is  the  confe- 
quence  ?  According  to  Mr.  C.  it  is  this :  Becaufe  bapto  is 
fometimes  ufed  to  fignify  one's  being  wet  with  the  dilHUing 
dew  of  heaven,  &c.  therefore  baptizo  fignifies  the  fame  thing  : 
Becaufe  bapto  fignifies  in  one  place  to  wafii  without  dipping, 
therefore  baptizo  fignifies  to  wafn  without  dipping;  and  be- 
caufe bapto  is  fometimes  ufed  to  fignify  to  colour,  or  ftain, 
by  afperfion,  or  the  like,  therefore  baptizo  is  ufed  in  the 
fame  fenfe  ;  therefore  fprinkling  is  authentic  baptifm. 
What  evidence,  I  pray  you,  my  hearers,  is  there  in  all  this  ? 
Yes,  what  {how  or  appearance  of  evidence  is  there  in  all 
tl  is  ?  Would  ten  thoufand  fuch  arguments  aiford  you  the 
:onvi<fHon,  or  gain  your  aflent,  where  you  had  a  cent 
to  lofe  ? 

Every  perfon  of  fenfe,  who  is  acquainted  with  the  Greek, 
erally  fpe  ow  Mr.  C's.  premiies, that  hap- 

to,  in  different   |  ;nifies  the  on  of  water  in 

?times  fignifies  over- 
whelming. But  no  rfiands  the  mutter, 
will  allow  his  conclufron,  lor  it  hath  no  connexion  with  the 
premifes. 

His  argument,  in  plain  Englifh,  is  this :  The  verb  to  wet, 

tics  fignifies  to  is  in  a  heavy  dew  we  fay  it 

(prinkles,  or  wets;  the  verb  10  overwhelm, fometimes  figni- 


46  The  Mode  and  Subjects        [Serm.  IV. 

fi;s  to  cover  all  over  with  water,  as  is  the  beach,  by  the 
flowing  of  the  tide.  Of  confequence,  to  overwhelm  is  to 
fprinkle  ;  therefore  to  fprinklc  is  authentic  overwhelming,  or 
baptifm.  The  fallacy  of  this  argument  is  eafily  detected, 
and  with  the  fame  eafe  may  any  one,  who  knows  the  differ- 
ent fignifications  of  bapto  and  iaptlzo,  uncover  the  fallacy 
and  complete  inconclufivenefs  of  Mr.  C'?.  argument. 
"  The  plain  truth  is,  he  hath  done  his  fide  a  differvice,  for 
by  fearchtng  he  hath  fun-.!,  and  implicitly  acknowledges, 
h  not  intentionally,  and  (I  fuppofe)  without  knowing 
it,  that  no  inftancVcan  be  found  where  lujtizo  fignifieth  the 
application  of  water  by  fprinkling,  or  any  other  way,  which 
does  not  imply  ovc-  helming,  or  wafhing,  that  is,  a  ceremo- 
nial wafhing,  which  is  bathing,  or  putting  inLo  water. 
Bat— 

4.  There  is  another  argument  upon  which  Mr.  Cleave- 
land  chiefly  dwells,  and  upon  which  he  appears  greatly  to 
reft  the  defence  of  his  whole  caufe.  It  is  his  flrong  hold 
againft  immerfion,  and  for  fprinkling ;  and  it  is  this  :  Bap- 
tifm with  water,  or  baptifm  as  a  Chriftian  ordinance,  is  to 
fignify  Chrift's  baptizing  with  the  Holy  Ghoft.  I  have  no 
where  found  that  he  hath  proved  that  this  is  the  great  and 
principal  thing  which  baptifm  fignifies ;  nor  do  I  by  any 
means  obtain  convidlion  that  the  mode  of  baptizing  is  to  be 
determined,  with  certainty,  from  this  particular  thing,  even 
fhould  it  be  granted  that  one  important  defign  of  baptifm 
is  to  fignify  Chrift's  baptizing  with  the  Holy  Ghoft.  But, 
as  Mr.  C.  feems  to  depend  upon  the  ftrength  of  this  argument 
more  than  he  does  upon  the  ftrength  of  any  other,  we  will 
grant  for  the  prefent,  that  baptifm  with  water  was  appoint- 
ed particularly,  if  not  mainly,  to  fet  forth  the  mode  in 
which  Chrift  baptizeth  with  the  Holy  Ghoft. 

Now  the  great  queftion  is,  In  what  manner  or  mode,  by 
fprinkling  or  overwhelming,  did  Chrift  Jefus  baptize  with 
the  Holy  Ghoft  ?  Mr.  C.  in  his  treatife,  replies  abundantly, 
by  fprinkling,  certainly.  We  will  put  this  fubjed  to  the 
teft,  by  inftancing  the  moft  remarkable  feafon  which  ever 
was,  in  which  Chrift,  in  a  moft  remarkable,  public  ar.d 
aftonifnino-  degree  was  baptizing  widi  the  Holy  Ghoft.  I 
pvefume  were  Mr.  C.  now  alive  he  could  not,  with  any  face 
cf  propriety,  objefl  againft  taking  a  fample  for  the  whole, 
the  moft  remarkable  inftance  which  ever  hath  been,  and, 
perhaps,  which  ever  will  be  exhibited  of  Chrift's  baptizing 


Serm.  IV.]  0f  Bapfifm.  4? 

with  the  Holy  Ghoft.  I  am  willing  to  fubmit  the  (Iron* 
argument  of  Mr.  C.  to  this  great  fample  of  Chrift's  baptiz- 
ingwith  the  Holy  Ghoft.  Are  not  all  you,  my  hearers, 
willing  to  leave  the  weight  of  his  argument  to  fuch  a  de- 
ciiion  i  I  am  perfuaded  you  all  fay,  Yes. 

We  will  then  bring  his  argument  to  the  propofed  teft. 

Ihe  inftance  which  we  will  take,  forfurely  it  is  the  mod 
aftoniftiing  one,  is  that  which  Chrift  foretold,  as  related, 
Adts  i.  5.  "John  truly  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  mail  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghoft,  not  many  days  hence." 
i  he  accompliftiment  of  this  prediction  and  promife  we  have 
related  in  the  four  firft  verfes  of  the  next  chapter.  It  is 
thus ;  When  the  day  of  Pentecoft  was  fully  come,  they 
were  all  with  one  accord  in  one  place.  And  fuddenly 
tnere  was  a  found  from  heaven,  as  of  a  rufhing,  mighty 
wind,  and  it  filled  all  the  houfe  where  they  were  fitting. 
And  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven  tongues,  like  as  of 
rue,  and  it  fat  upon  each  of  them.  And  they  were  all  filled 
with  the  Holy  Ghoft. 

Here  was  truly  a  wonderful  inftance  of  Chrift's  baptizing 
with  the  Holy  Ghoft.  *        6 

Here  1.  All  the  houfe  was  filled  with  the  found,  wind 
or  Spirit  fiom  heaven.  2.  Cloven  tongues,  like  as  of  fire, 
wl'hfnTGhot0'  them'      *     Th^  -ere  all  filled 

We  here  fee  that  they  were  all  overwhelmed ;  for  all  the 
houfe,  where  they  were  fitting,  was  filled ;  and  not  only 
were  they  all  overwhelmed,  but  they  were  alfo  filled. 

It  is  left  with  you  to  determine,  what  becomes  of  Mr. 
C  s.  argument,  upon  which  he  lays  fo  much  ftrefs,  and  of 
which  he  fpeaks  with  fo  much  confidence,  and  not  unfre- 
quently  with  an  air  of  triumph.  Is  there  a  word  about 
fprinkling  m  any  part  of  it  ?  or  is  there  any  thing  which 
looks  like  it  ?  Does  it  not  look  coniiderably  like  immerfion 
or  overwhelming  ?  At  leaft,  does  it  not  favour  immerfion, 
or  overwhelming,  as  much  as  it  does  fprinkling  ?  If  fo,  then 
It  proves  nothing  for  fprinkling.  It  is  left  with  you  to 
determine  which  fide  it  favours. 

It  is  poffible,  however,  that  fome  of  you  may  fuppofe, 
that  Mr.  C.  might  intend  that  baptifm,  if  it  may  be  fo 
called,  which  the  Holy  Ghoft  minifters,  when  it  creates  the 
foul  anew.  To  this  fuppofition,  I  will  juft  obferve,  "  The 
Wind  bloweth  (faith  Chrift)  where  it  lifteth,  and  thouheareft 


4?  The  Mode  and  Subj:fls        [Scrm.  IV. 

the  found  thereof,  but  canfl:  not  tell  whence  it  comtth,  or 
ivhither  it  gorth  ;  fo  is  every  one  that  i.->  born  of  the  Spirit.'' 
Would  it  not  be  extreme  folly  to  fuppofe  that  water  baptifm 
reprefents  die  operations  of  the  Spirit,  when  none  can  know 
whence  it  cometh,  or  whither  it  goeth  ?  It  may  repi 
the  effect  of  the  Spiiit's  operations,  and  it  is  called,  a  being 
born,  not  fprinkled,  of  the  Spirit. 

5.  In  reading  Mr.  C'.c.  defence  cf  fprinkling,  as  being 
authentic  baptifm,  I  noticed  but  one  more  diftmcT:  argu- 
ment, and  it  is  diis  : 

"  Nipto,  baptizo,  louoy  brecho,  pluno,  or  apopluno,  all  fignify 
to  wain."  The  conclufion  which  he  draws  from  this  is,  in 
fhort,  the  following  :  To  baptize  is  not  to  immerfe,  but  to 
fprinkle.  I  fee  no  connexion  between  his  premife  and  con- 
clufion. Befides,  Mr.  C.  tell  us,  page  80,  that  the  Jews, 
by  adhering  to  the  tradition  of  the  elders,  obferved  the 
wafliing  of  hands,  and  divers  other  things,  as  a  religious 
ceremony.  Now,  if  all  the  words  which  Mr.  C.  mentions, 
fignify  to  wafli,  and  yet  fome  of  diem  fignify  common 
warning,  and  another,  and  that  baptizo,  fignifies  ceremonial 
wafhing,  and  that  be  to  put  into  water,  as  is  the  cafe,  whit 
does  his  argument  prove  ?  It  proves  jult  nothing  to  his 
point.  Had  he  proved,  what  he  hath  not  even  attempted, 
that  they  all  fignify  the  fame  kind  of  warning,  and  that  the 
wafhing  fignified  was  not  immerfion,  but  fprinkling  only, 
then  his  conclulion  would  have  followed,  that  fprinkling  is 
baptifm. 

If  the  above  arguments  will  not  fupport  Mr.  Cleaveland's 
theory,  it  muft  ail  come  down  ;  for  they  are  the  fubiiance, 
if  not  all  the  arguments,  which  he  hath  adduced,  and  1 
prefume  better  cannot  be  found. 

I  thought  to  have  taken  Dr.  Lathrop's  arguments  upon 
the  fame  fubjccl,  into  cor.  :   but  upon  re-examining 

them  I  find  there  is  no  materia!  diffimilarity  between  his 
and  Mr.  C*s.  ;  they  therefore  both  fland  or  fall  together. 
A  word  or  two  may  be  neie  added. 

Dr.  Ladirop  aifures  us  that  Gyprian,  who  wrote  within 
about  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  of  die  apoftles,  fpeaking 
of  fprinkling,  fays,  "  In  the  facrament  of  falvation  (that  is 
baptifm;  when  neceffity  compels,  the  fhorteft  ways  of  tranfacl- 
ing  divine  matters  do,  by  God's  grace,  confer  die  whole 
benent."  The  Dcftor  adds,  "  The  ancients  praEliJed  int. 
tnerfia 

L.  -5- 


Serm.  IV.]  of  Baptifm.  49 

By  this  quotation  of  the  Doctor's  from  Cyprian,  and 
confeffion  of  his  own,  being  put  together,  it  appears  at  once 
that  all  his  preceding  arguments  are  erroneous  ;  for  Cyp- 
rian does  not  intimate  that  fprinkling  was  from  heaven, 
but  fays  it  was  from  neceflity.  Befides,  his  calling  baptifm 
the  facrament  of  falvation,  fliows  us  the  error,  whence  the 
neceflity  of  fprinkling  came,  namely,  a  belief  that  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptifm  was  neceflary  to  falvation.  This  being 
the  cafe,  and  it  alfo  being  true,  as  the  Doctor  acknowledges, 
that  the  ancients  practifed  immerfion,  fave  when  neceflity 
compelled,  as  they  erroneoufly  fuppofed,  the  confequence  is 
fairly  this,  that  immerfion  is  from  heaven,  the  ancients  be- 
ing judges ;  and  that  fprinkling  is  from  men,  from  neceflity, 
or  rather  from  error. 

I  thought  to  have  added  no  more  upon  the  Doctor's 
mode  of  Chriftian  baptifm.  However,  one  argument 
ought  to  be  taken  out  of  his  hands,  left  it  mifguide  fome 
of  his  readers.  He  tells  us  that  baptixo,  in  Mark  vii.  and 
Luke  xi.  is  ufed  to  fignify  the  application  of  water  to  the 
hands.  The  only  anfwer  needed  is,  It  is  not  thus  faid,  in 
Mark,  or  Luke,  or  in  any  other  part  of  the  Bible.  When 
the  Doctor  fhall  re-examine  the  pailages,  he  will  probably 
fee  the  mi  flake. 

Will  gentlemen,  and  Chriflians  too,  forever  contend 
againft  immerfion^  the  inftitution  of  heaven,  and  for  fprinkling^ 
which  hath  nothing  but  error  and  convenience  for  its  fupport  I 


g 


50  7 'be  Mode  and  Subjtch         [Serm.  V. 


SERMON   V. 

MATTHEW  xxviii.  19,  20. 

Co  ye,  ihirtfrre,  and  teach  all  tuitions,  baptising  them  in  the  mine 
of  the  Father,  and  of  th.   Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Chofl  ;   ! 
ing  them  to  ohferve  all  things  ivhatfoever  I  have  commanded 
you  :  And,  lo,  I  am  with  you  a/way,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
luprld.     Amen* 

HAVE  confiderce  in  you,  brethren,  that  ye  will  keep 
the  ordinances,  as  I  (hull  deliver  them  to  you,  and  prove 
them  to  be  from  the  word  of  the  Lord. 

One  thing  I  would  fiiil  know  of  you,  my  brethren, 
whether  you,  like  the  more  noble  Bereans,  will  receive  the 
word  with  readinefs,  feauhirg  the  fcriptures  daily,  that 
yon  may  know  the  truth  of  what  you  hear. 

Ycu  will  bear  in  mind,  that  whofbever  loveth  father  or 
mother,  hotife  or  hinds,  wife  or  children,  more  than  (Thrift, 
is  not  worthy  of  him.  If,  through  affection  for  any  of 
thefe,  ycu  fkould  rcfufe  to  obey  Chrift,  it  will  be  too  evi- 
dent that  you  love  them  more  than  you  do  him,  and  fo  are 
not  worthy  of  him. 

Should  you  love  any  erroneous  belief  and  practice  more 
than  you  do  the  truths  of  Chrift,  you  will,  fo  far  as  you 
manifeft  it,  prove  that  you  are  not  worthy  of  him. 

Should  you  defpife  me  for  delivering  and  vindicating  the 
truths  of  Chrift  to  you,  you  will  at  the  fame  time  defpife 
him.  You  will  therefore  give  good  heed  to  what  you 
and  to  what  you  do  in  this  matter;  for  if  it  be  of  God, 
it  will  ftand,  and  none  can  overthrow  it.  It  is  hoped  none 
of  you  will  be  found  fighting  againft  God. 

This  difcourfe  may  contain   a  review  of   what  we  , 
paifed  over,  together  with  fome  application.      In  nn  ilrft 
difcourfe  to  you  on  the  fubject,  which  we  have  ftiil  before 
us,  the    following  are    the  principal    things  to    whi< 
attended. 

I.     I  propofed  a  number  of  plain  truths,  confidcved  to  be 
as  firft  principles,  for  your  attention. 

1.     Eaptifm  is  a  poiitive  inftmition,  about  which  we  can 
know  nothing,  as  to   its  being  a  Chriftian  ordinance,  but 


Serm.  V.]  of  Bsph/ni.  $\ 

from  what  Chrift,  and  thofe  infpired  by  his  Spirit,  have 
taught  us. 

2.  All  which  we  are  required  to  believe  and  practifc, 
with  refpect  to  the  Chriftian  ordinance  of  baptifm,  is  de- 
clared to  us  by  Jefus  Chrift,  and  by  his  forerunner  and 
apoitles. 

3.  When  Jefus  Chrift  firft  inftituted  the  ordinance  of 
baptifm,  he  no  doubt  delivered  his  mind  {0  clearly  and  hilly 
upon  the  fubjecl:,  that  his  difciples  and  immediate  followers 
uaderftood  and  practifed  as  he  would  have  them. 

4.  Every  thing  which  hath,  by  the  precepts  and  corr- 
hiandmenls  of  men,  been  added  ilnce,  is  aiide  irorn  the 
ordinance,  and  makes  no  part  of  it. 

5.  No  man,  nor  body  of  men,  hath  any  more  authority 
to  add  to  or  diminiih  from  this  ordinance,  than  they  have 
to  inititute  a  new  one  and  call  it  Chrift's. 

6.  Whenever,  and  wherever,  the  ordinance  of  baptifm  is 
fo  changed  as  to  lofe  the  intent  of  the  inftitution,  then  and 
there  the  ordinance  is  loft,  and  becomes  no  Chriftian  ordi- 
nance at  all. 

II.  I  defined  for  your  information  a  number  of  words 
which  appertain  to  the  ordinance  of  baptifm. 

We  found  all  thefe  to  be  juft  as  we  might  expect  to  have 
found  them,  provided  immerfion  be  baptifm,  or  the  mode 
in  which  it  is  administered. 

Baptijlerlon,  a  place  in  which  to  wafti  the  body.  Bc$ttfm% 
immerfion,  or  dipping  one  all  over  in  water.  Bapi'i'z-o  fig- 
ivifies  to  dip,  or  wafh,  the  body  all  over  in  water.  Load  (a 
word  feveral  times  ufed  in  reference  to,  or  fignifying  the 
fame,  as  baptifm)  is,  to  wafh,  to  rinfe,  to  bathe,  &c.     Then 

III.  I  fet  before  you  all  the  texts  in  the  New-Teftament 
which  relate  either  to  the  baptifm  of  John,  or  to  that  of  our 
Lord  Jefus  Chrift.  In  the  next  place,  I  propofed  for  your 
meditation  the  paffages  of  fcripture  where  wafhing  is  men- 
tioned, and.  the  Greet:  words  which  are  ufed.  I  then  call- 
ed your  attention  to  thofe  paffages  in  which  fprinkiing  is 
mentioned,  and  to  the  Greek  words  which  arc  made  ufe  of. 
Lajlly,  I  read  to  you  thofe  fcripture^j&jheie  to  dip  is  men- 
tioned, and  aifo  the  Greek  words  which  are  rendered  to  dip. 

In  no:  one  of  the  places,  where  the  ordinance  of  baptifm 
is  brought  to  view,  do  we  find  one  word  about  fprinkiing, 
or  any  thing  whichdooks  like  it.  In  every  place,  where  to 
dip  is  mentioned,  we  find  a  near  relation  to  baptifm;  every 


$%  The  Mode  and  Sttbj eels         [Serm.  V. 

word  which  is  ufed,  coming  from  the  fame  root  or  theme, 
from  which  bapti-zo  comes. 

As  to  the  word  iva/J:,  we  find  no  relation  between  the 
words  which  fignify  to  wafh,  and  thofe  which  fignify  to 
baptize,  fave  in  thoib  few  infiances  where  the  meaning  is  to 
vaih  the  body,  or  put  into  water,  or  waih  a  thing  all  over. 
When  we  come  to  the  Greek  words  which  fignify  to  fprin- 
kle,  we  find  no  firnilarity,  or  likenefs,  between  them  and  the 
word  to  baptize. 

In  all  the  places  where  baptizing  is  mentioned,  not  a 
word  is  ufed  which  looks  like  fprinkling  ;  where  fprinkling 
is  mentioned,  there  is  not  a  word  ufed  which  appears  like 
baptifm. 

In  my  next  difcourfe,  I  produced  my  evidence,  that  my 
definitions  of  baptifm  and  to  baptize  were  accurate  and  jult. 
I  dwelt  largely  upon  this  evidence,  for  the  merit  of  the 
whole  fubjeel  depends  greatly,  if  not  entirely,  upon  the  de- 
terminate meaning  of  the  words,  which  our  Lord  ufed  in  the 
inftitution  of  the  ordinance,  and  when  fpeaking  of  it.  When 
we  know  the  determinate  fignification  of  his  words,  we 
know  what  he  fays,  and  what  we  ought  to  underftand  by 
the  words  whicli  he  ufes.  The  evidence  which  I  produced, 
was,  in  fhort,  the  following. 

I.  The  Greek  Lexicon,  Butterworth's  Concordance, 
Bailey's  and  Entick's  Dictionaries,  bear  their  united  teftimo- 
ny,  that  the  plain,  literal,  and  common,  if  not  univerfal,  fig- 
nification of  the  words  baptifm  and  to  baptize,  is  immerfion 
and  to  immerfe,  bury  in  water,  to  dip,  or  to  plunge,  a  per- 
fon  all  ffltfer  in  water.  Here  are  four  learned  and  pofitive 
witnefTes  to  the  fame  thing.  Indeed,  they  give  no  other 
fignification,  fave  it  be  to  wafh,  which  we  have  feen  intends 
a  ceremonial  wafhing,  which  is  to  put  into  water,  or  to 
bathe. 

2.  I  repeated  fome  of  the  attendant  or  circumftantial 
facts,  which  have  relation  to  the  ordinance  of  baptifm. 
John  baptized  in  the  river  Jordan.  He  was  baptizing  in 
Enon  ntar  to  Salim,  becaufe  there  was  much  water  there. 
The  word  laptijlery  fignifies  a  place  in  which  to  waih  the 
body  all  over.  Baptifm  fignifies  to  dip,  to  plunge,  immerfe, 
or  to  waih  the  body  all  over  in  water.  Baptizer  fignifies 
one  who  dips,  plunges,  or  wafhes  the  body  all  over  in  water. 
To  baptise  .fignifies  to  immerfe,  plunge  under  water,  or  under 
any  other  liquid  thing,  or  to  dip,  or  to  put  into  water.    To  be 


Serm.  V.j  of  Baptifm.  5$ 

baptized  is  to  be  plungeJ,  immerfed,  or  wafhsd  all  over  in 
water. 

Thefe  things  being  true,  is  it  not  eafy  to  determine  what 
the  ordinance  of  baptifm  fignifies  ? 

3.  The  words  baptlfmos  and  bapiiz.j>  have  two,  and  only- 
two,  tranflations  in  the  New-Tetiament.  Thefe  two  are 
baptifm  and  wafting.     Where  their  meaning  is,wafhing,  or 

2  they  are  thus  translated,  it  is  a  ceremonial  wafhing, 
which  is  to  put  into  water,  or  bathe  the  He ih  in  water,  as 
you  may  fee,  Levit.  xi.  32.  Numb.  xix.  19.  When  they  are 
translated  baptifm,  or  to  baptize,  the  thing  intended  is  the 
baptifm  of  water,  of  fire,  of  fufferings,  or  of  the  Holy  Gholt. 

4.  I  brought  forward  feveral  noted  witneifes,  to  bear 
their  united  -teitimony,  that  I  had  given  a  juft  definition  of 
the  word  baptizo  :  thefe  were,  John  Calvin,  Zanchius,  and 
Dr.  Owen. 

In  the  next  place  I  mentioned  to  you  that  Paul  repeated- 
ly ufes  the  word  loud,  where  he  means  the  fame  thing  a* 
where  he  ufes  the  word  baptizo  ;  that  he  ufes  thefe  words 
as  Signifying  the  fame  thing.  "Whereas,  loud  fignifies  to 
wafh  and  to  bathe  the  body  in  water,  and  confequently  bap- 
tize means  the  fame. 

Lajlly.  I  brought  forward  Paul's  expdfition  of  the  word 
lapti/m,  and  mowed  you,  that  he  expounds  it,  as  being  bu- 
ried with  Chritl  in  baptifm,  or  immerfion. 

In  my  difcourfe,  which  I  next  preached  to  you,  I  produ- 
ced evidence,  that  the  apoftles  and  primitive  Chnilian«,  not 
only  understood  the  matter  as  I  have  defcribed  it,  but  prac- 
tiled  accordingly. 

In  fupport  of  the  apoftle's  practice,  I  cbferved,  that  the 
word  hud,  of  determinate  Signification,  which  they  ufed  to 
lignify  their  practice,  or  what  was  done  by  them  in  baptifm, 
determines  or  fixes  their  practice  to  be  immerfion.  I  farther 
observed,  that  they  were  commanded  to  praclife  baptifm, 
or  to  baptize,  as  I  have  defcribed  it ;  and  that  the  fcriptures. 
teftify,  that  they  thus  did  ;  and  alio  that  the  apoftle's  fay, 
the  mode  of  baptizing  in  their  day  was,  by  burying  the  fub- 
jec"is,  in  baptifm. 

For  witneifes  that  the  primitive  church  practiced  immer- 
iion, we  have  Mofheim,  Bailey,  Calvin,  Baxter,  and  many 
others,  all  agreeing  in  this  one  point,  that  the  mode  of  uap» 
tiding,  or  baptifm  itfelf,  among  the  undents,  was  immerfion, 


54  T/jc1  Mode  and  Subjects        [Serm.  V. 

We  have  alio  evidence  that  the  church  thus  pra&ifed,  for 
thirteen  hundred  years,  fome  extreme  cafes  excepted.  More- 
over we  have  evidence  that  all  the  church,  in  Europe,  in 
Afia,  and  in  Africa,  five  that  part  of  it,  which  is  now,  or 
hath  been,  under  the  bewildering  power  of  the  popes,  do 
now,  and  ever  have,  practifed  immeriion.  . 

Btlidcs  all* this,  the  very  reafons  which  the  Pedobaptifts 
affign,  why  they  have  laid  afide  immeriion,  fnow  that  iprink- 
ling  is  not  commanded  by  the  Lord,  but  is  taught  by  the 
precepts  of  men. 

You  fee  we  have  an  ocean  of  witnefTes  and  evidence 
againft  us;  and  all,  or  nighly  fo,  from  our  own  denomina- 
tion of  Chriftians.  What  a  world  of  evidence  might  we 
reaforrably  expedt  that  the  Baptifts  would  be  able  to  bring 
for  themfelves  and  againft  us  and  our  practice,  would  we 
hear  them,  when  our  own  fide  bring  fo  much  againft  their 
Own  practice  and  for  the  Baptifts  !  Beiides,  this  evidence  ap- 
pears to  ftand  in  its  full  force  againft  us,  there  being  no  op- 
pofite  evidence  to  weaken  its  force.  Indeed  we  are,  in  this 
matter,  much  like  criminals,  who  plead,  at  leaft  the  leaders 
of  them,  guilty  to  the  whole  indictment.  However,  fome 
have  made  a  lull  plea  of  not  guilty,  but  in  part.  At  the 
fame  time,  numbers  of  them,  in  their  plea,  have  convicted 
themfelves  of  being  guilty  throughout. 

In  the  laft  difcourfe,  after  holding  to  your  view  the  pur- 
port, end  and  defign  of  baptifm,  I  examined  one  of  their 
pleas  of,  not  guilty.  But  what  evidence  did  the  good  man 
give  of  his  innocence  ?  Can  the  largeft  ftretch  of  charity  al- 
iow  more  than  this,  he  I/uuj  not  what  he  did?  Was  truth 
ever  brought  to  fuch  ilraits  as  to  require  to  be  fupported  by 
fuch  arguments  ? 

APPLICATION. 

FROM  a  review  of  the  whole  fubjecl,  the  following  appear 
to  flow  as  neceifary  confequences. 

I.  Whether  we  allow  immerfion  to  be  the  fcripturc 
mode  of  baptifm,  and  the  only  one  which  it  requires,  or 
not ;  one  thing  is  clear,  that  we  have  as  much  evidence  of 
its  being  {oy  as  we  could  have,  on  fuppofition  that  it  were. 

The  fcriptures  declare,  in  various  ways,  that  this  is  the  ! 
mode,  and  mention  no  other.      The  fcriptures  expound 
themfelves  to  mean  immerfion,  or  burying. 


Serm.  V.]  of  Baptifm.  $$ 

We  find  not  a  Tingle  trace,  in  all  the  fcriptures,  where  the 
ordinance  is  fpoken  of,  of  any  thing  ftiort  of  immeriion  be- 
ing mentioned. 

Good  men,  who  are  fkilful  in  the  true  import  of  words, 
have  agreed,  that  the  plain,  literal  and  accurate  meaning  of 
the  word,  to  baptize,  is  to  immerfe  or  bury  in  water,  &c. 
Nor  have  any  been  able  to  fhow  that  in  any  part  of  God's 
word  it  hath  any  oppofite  meaning  or  application. 

The  church  of  Jefus  Chrift  have,  in  all  ages,  underftood 
the  matter  of  baptifm  as  I  have  explained  it.  We  muft, 
however,  except,  for  the  laft  three  or  five  hundred  years, 
many  of  thofe  branches  of  the  church,  which  have  been,  or 
are  now,  under  the  jurifdiction  of  the  church  of  Rome. 
The  purport,  end  and  defign  of  baptifm  alio  intimate  to  us, 
•that  this  is  the  manner  of  baptizing. 

Indeed,  if  there  be  any  words  in  the  Greek  language  by 
which  the  Lord  of  the  Baptifmal  Inftitution  could  have  told 
us  what  he  intended,  the  words  ufed  do  this.  For  there 
are  no  two  words  in  the  language,  or,  at  leaft,  none  which 
have  come  to  our  knowledge,  which  fo  literally,  fo  uni- 
formly, and  fo  exprefsly,  fignify  to  immerfe,  or  warn,  or 
bathe  the  body  in  water,  as  do  the  words  baptl-zd  and  loud. 
Hence,  if  immerfion  be  baptifm,  the  Lord,  if  I  may  fo  fay, 
could  not  have  told  us  of  it  in  the  New-Te (lament,  if  the 
(  words,  chofen  by  the  Holy  Ghoft,  do  not  afford  this  infor- 
mation. If  baptifm  be  immerfion,  then  the  two  mofl  fuit- 
able  words  have  been  chofen  to  exprefs  it ;  but  if  fprinkling 
be  baptifm,  two  words  which  were  farther  from  the  point 
could  not  have  been  found.  We  find  no  inftance,  in  the 
Bible,  where  they  are  thus  ufed.  In  fliort,  no  two  words, 
which  mention  the  application  of  water  in  any  way,  are  far- 
ther from  the  idea  of  fprinkling,  than  are  thofe  two  which 
are  ufed  when  baptifm  is  intended.  It  therefore  appears, 
that  whilft  we  have  ufed  fprinkling  for  baptifm,  we  have 
departed  from  the  plain  and  primitive  import  of  the  words 
ufed,  as  far  as  we  could  without  a  complete  omifllon  of 
water.  None  can  be  at  a  farther  remove  from  the  inftitu- 
ted,  fcripture  baptifm,  than  we  have  been,  without  denying 
it  in  whole. 

2.  Error  is  very  infinuatihg  and  deceiving.  Surely  it 
hath  proved  thus  in  the  fubjecT:  of  fprinkling. 

Cyprian,  who  wrote  within  about  a  hundred  and  fifty 
years  of  the  apoflles,  fpeaking  of  fprinkling,  fays,  as  quoted 


56  The  Mode  and  Subjecls        [Serra.  V. 

by  Dr.  Lathrop,  "  In  the  facrament  offahation,  (i.  e.  bap- 
tifm) when  necejjity  compels,  the  lliorteft  ways  of  transacting 
divine  matters,  do,  by  God's  grace,  confer  the  whole  bene- 
fit."    Here  we  fee  the  origin  of  fprinkling  for  baptifm. 

It  was  an  early  error  in  the  church,  that  baptifm  was 
necelfary  to  falvation.  Hence,  when  it  was  judged,,  that 
life  would  be  endangered  by  immerfion,  the  perfon  mu[t 
either  lofe  his  life  by  baptifm,  or  lofe  his  foul  for  want  of 
being  baptized,  or  fome  other  mode  mull  be  invented.  Or» 
if  the  lick  perfon  was  Highly  dying,  he  muil  be  baptized 
without  immerfion,  or  probably  lofe  his  foul,  before  he 
could  be  conveyed  where  the  ordinance  might  be  adminif- 
tered.  Under  tbefe  circumftances,  man's  fruitful  invention 
devifed  fprinkling  as  a  fubftitute  for  baptifm.  Here  is  the 
origin  of  fpi  inkling,  as  the  ancients  have  told  us. 

In  procefs  of  time,  found  ladies  and  gendewomen  wish- 
ed to  have  fprinkling  fubftituted  for  baptifm  in  their  behalf; 
afterwards  others,  till  at  laft,  it  became  a  general  cuftom 
in  many  of  the  European  nations.  In  the  mean  time,  the 
Baptifts,  and  many  others,  objected  againft  the  practice,  as 
being  contrary  from  the  command  of  Chrift.  Hence  aro'cr 
the  neceffity  of  defending  it,  or  clfe  having  it  comldered 
as  a  departure  from  the  lairh.  Matters  being  thus,  the  in- 
vention of  many  was  in  full  exerciie  co  defend  fprinkling,  as 
being  of  divine  origin.  A  number  of  ceremonial  rites  of 
the  Levitical  law  were  prelfed  into  this  fervice  ;  feveral  paf- 
fages  of  the  New-Teftawient  were  wreded  from  their  nat- 
ural meaning  to  a  forced  interpretation*;  and  out  of  the 
motley  mixture  weie  formed  what  were  ftyled  argum 
bur  fuch  arguments  can  ftand  no  longer  than  while  pre- 
judice lives  to  iupport  them. 

However,  the  molt  difagreeable  part  is,  a  good  number 
of  very  pious  and  learned  men  have  been  carried  away  in 
this  whirlpool  of  deception.  Their  being  deceived  has- 
deceived  others;  and  we  are,  or  have  been,  among  the 
deceived. 

3.  Sprinkling  is  not  from  heaven,  but  of  men.  This 
too,  if  I  miftake  not,  by  the  fully  and  fairly  implied  concef- 
fion  of  thole,  who  have  written  in  its  defence. 

If  from  heaven,  why,  in  the-firft  place,  ufe  it  only  when 
neceffity  compelled  !  as  was  fuppofed  to  lave  fouls  from 
hell  ?    If  from  heaven,  why,  afterwards,  ufe  it  only  in  cafes 


Serm.  V.]  of  Baptifnu  $y 

of  lefs  urgent,  neceflity  ?  If  from  heaven,  why  bring  in  the 
coldneis  of  the  country  as  an  excufe  for  ufing  it  ?  If  from 
heaven,  why  not  mentioned  in  the  inftitution  of  the  ordi- 
nance, or  in  fome  palfage  where  mention  is  made"  of  bap- 
tifm,  or  in  fome  other  place  in  all  the  writings  of  the  Evan- 
gel ids  and  Apoftles  ?  If  from  heaven,  why  not  intimated  as 
being  fo,  by  thofe  who  firll  introduced  it  ?  If  fprinkling  be 
from  heaven,  why  fo  many  inconclnftve  arguments  in  its  fup- 
port  ?  Is  the  word  of  God  deficient  in  this  particular,  and 
hath  it  revealed  what  cannot  be  fupported  by  it  ?  If  from 
heaven,  why  not  commanded,  enjoined,  required,  or  fo  much 
as  once  hinted,  as  being  a  mode  of  a  goipel  ordinance,  in 
any  part  of  that  revelation  which  we  have  received  from 
heaven  ? 

4.  Another  confequence  is,  That  the  fcripture  mode  of 
baptifm  is  immerfion,  and  for  aught  we  know,  the  only 
mode,  and  neceflary  to  the  adminiftration  cf  the  ordinance. 
This  is  the  plain,  literal,  fcripture  fenfe  of  baptifm  ;  there- 
fore this  is  the  plain,  literal,  fcripture  mode.  The  fcriptures 
mention  no  other  mode  ;  therefore  this  may  be,  and  is,  for 
aught  appears,  the  only  fcripture  mode. 

5«  Fiom  what  we  have  gone  over,  one  thing  appears 
certain  :  That  Chriit  never  commanded  any  of  his  follow- 
ers to  adminifter  any  gofpel  ordinance  by  fprinkling,  and, 
at  the  fame  time,  to  fay,  /  baptize.  For  to  do  thus  would 
be  to  command  them  to  do  one  iking,  and  to  fay  that  they 
did  another. 

To  fprinkle  is  to  ranfize,  which  hath  no  vifible  connexion 
with  baptifm.  To  fay,  Chrift  commanded  his  difciples  to 
rantize,  and,  at  the  fame  time,  to  fay,  We  baptize,  is  what 
no  Chriftian  would,  knowingly,  be  willing  to  fay.  This 
would,  if  I  miftake  not,  be  making  Chriit.  the  minifter  of  fin. 
But  what  I  have  long,  implicitly,  though  ignorantly,  done, 
others  may  ftill  do. 

6.  Another  confequence  is,  cuftom  hath  great  influence 
upon  the  human  mind.  It  furely  hath  upon  us.  For,  even 
after  we  have  full  evidence  that  fprinkling,  for  baptifm,  is 
not  irom  heaven,  but  was  the  offspring  of  error,  and  fofter- 
ed  by  the  dark  ages  of  Papiilical  ufurpation,  we  are  hardly 
perfuaded  to  renounce  it.  But,  my  brethren,  my  expecta- 
tion is,  that  after  you  have  fearched  your  Bibles  through  and 
through,  and  find  nothing  of  it  there,  you  will  jive  it  up. 


58  The  Mode  and  Sub/efts        [Senn.  V. 

Should  the  Lord  inquire  of  us,  why  we  fubftitute  fprinkling 
for  baptizing,  and  lay  unto  us,  Whence  is  this  fubditution,  • 
from  heaven,  or  of  men  ?  Would  there  not  be  great  : earn- 
ings among  us  what  anfwer  to  return  ?  Should  we  fay,  From 
heaven  ;  he  might  reply,  How  do  you  prove  it :  Should 
we  lay,  Of  men,  then  might  he  aik,  Why  do  you  pracViie  it  ? 

7.  Another  conicqu^nce  i;,  we  have  the  fame  kind  of 
evidence,  and  perhaps  more  cf  it,  that  baptifm  is  to  be  ad- 
ministered by  immerfion,  or  dippisg,  or  putting  into  water, 
than  we  have  to  fapport  any  other  gofpel  precept,  or  prac- 
tice. The  evidence  which  wc  have^in  either  cafe,  is  the  fig- 
nilication  r»f  the  words  which  are  uud  to  point  out  the  thing 
to  be  believed,  or  praclifed. 

Were  it  not  for  the  influence  of  habit,  or  cultom,  you 
would  as  readily  and  naturally  conclude,  from  the  very 
words  ufed,  that  immerfion,  or  dipping,  or  wafhing  the 
body  in  water,  was  the  meaning  of  baptifm,  as  diat  a  religious 
eating  of  bread,  and  drinking  of  wine,  in  commemoration 
of  our  dying  Lord,  was  the  way  to  obferve  the  Lord's 
fupper. 

8.  We  appear  to  be  brought  to  this  dilemma  :  We 
mud  either  embrace  the  tradition  of  the  elders,  for  the  rule 
of  one  part  of  our  practice  ;  or  we  muft  no  more  fprinkle, 
and  call  it  baptifm. 

9.  Another  confequence  is,  Thofe,  whofirft  introduced 
fprinkling  for  baptizing,  had  no  more  right  fo  to  do,  than 
they  had  to  inftitute  a  new  rite,  or  ordinance,  and  call  it 
Cm-id's. 

What  authority  have  we  to  follow  their  erroneous  and 
hurtful  practice  ? 

10.  We  have  another  confequence  worthy  of  confidera- 
tion,  and  it  is  this  :  The  Chriftian  ordinance  of  baptifm  is  a 
molt  folemn  and  fignificant  ordinance,  and  of  very  high  im- 
portance. 

I  fpeak  not  of  the  vifible,  or  actual,  adminiftration  of  it, 
in  particular  ;  for  I  never  faw  it  adminillered,  as  Chrift 
hath  delivered  it  to  his  people:  But  1  refer  to  the  purport, 
end  and  defign  of  it.  It  is,  among  many  other  things,  the 
great  dividing  line,  which  Heaven  hath  appointed  trt  be 
drawn  between  the  viable  kingdom  of  Immanuel,  and  the 
men  cf  this  world.  Doubdefs  there  are  a  large  number 
who  bebngi  to  Chrid's  invifible  kingdom,  who  are  not, 


Serm.  V.]  of  Baptifm.  59 

ftrictly  fpeaking,  or  regularly,  in  his  kingdom  vifibly,  hav- 
ing not  fubmitted  to  this  ordinance,  which  is  the  great  and 
important  line  of  diftinction. 

11.  It  appears  that  we  are,  truly,  in  a  trying  ftrite. 
We  muft  depart,  in  one  inftance,  from  a  long  habit,  or  con- 
tinue to  do  as  we  have  done,  and  yet  not  be  able  to  vindi- 
cate, by  the  fcriptures  of  truth,  our  own  conduit. 

Lq/Hy.  We  come,  at  length,  to  the  anfwer  of  this  old 
and  difficult  and  perplexing  queftion  :  Where,  and  when, 
did  the  religious  feci,  called  Baptifts,  arife  ?  The  anfwer  is, 
plainly,  this.  They  arofe  in  Judea,  at  the  time  when  John 
came,  preaching  in  the  wildernefs  the  baptifm  of  repentance. 
I  mention  this  confequence  with  confiderable  aflurance,  be- 
caufe  the  New-Teftament  abundantly  favours  it,  and  no 
man  is  able  to  contradict  me.  Should  any  attempt  it,  he 
will  fail  for  want  of  evidence.  I  ihould,  not  long  fmce, 
hive  been  gratified,  could  I  have  found  their  origin  any 
where  in  the  dark  ages  of  Popery,  or  at  the  commencement 
of  the  reformation,  among  the  famous  enthufiafts  of  Ger- 
many, Holland,  Switzerland,  or  Weftphalia.  But,  after 
having  long  purfued  the  perplexing  refearch,  I  found  their 
origin,  where  [  leaft  of  ail  expected  it,  in  Enon  and  Jordan. 
A  few  queftions  are  now  to  clofe  the  prefent  fubject. 

1.  Is  not  immerfion  the  fcripture  baptifm  ? 

2.  Is  fprinkling  a  mode  of  baptizing  warranted  by  fcrip- 
ture ?  If  fo,  where  ? 

3.  Are  Old-Teflament  rites  to  explain  New-Teftament 
ordinances  ?  Is  Mofes  to  correct  what  Chrift  hath  left  in- 
complete ?  Is  it  io  ? 

4.  Will  Chvift  approve  of  that  practice  of  men,  which  fo 
changes  his  pofitive  inftitution,  as  to  lofe,  greatly  to  lofe,  the 
purport,  end  and  defign  of  it  ? 

5.  Was  it  ever  right,  and  is  it  now,  for  men  to  change 
what  Chrift  hath  commanded  to  be  in  perpetual  obferva- 
tion  ?  Did  the  fuppoied  extreme  cafes  juftify  this  change  at 
firlt,  and  will  trifling  inconveniences  juftify  us  now  ? 

6.  Will  it  be  wife-  and  fafe  for  us  continually  to  forfake 
the  commandment  of  Chrift  for  the  precepts  of  men  ? 

7.  Do  you,  my  brethren,  or  can  you,  blame  me  for  wifh- 
ing  you  to  keep  the  ordinances  of  Chrift  as  he  hath  deliver- 
ed them  to  the  faints  i 


60  The  Mode  and  Subjects  [Serin.  V. 

8.  Should  I  have  manifefted  myfelf  your  friend,  or 
Chrift's,  if,  after  having  found  fuch  a  precious,  new  and  old 
treajure  in  his  word,  as  is  the  Chrjftian  ordinance  of  baptifm, 
I  had  not  .ventured  my  life,  or  in  other  words,  my  reputa- 
tion, my  eafe,  my  property,  and  my  every  worldly  confeder- 
ation, to  bring  it  forth  to  your  view  and  acceptance,  that 
you  might  more  fully  walk  in  all  the  ftatutcs  and  ordinances 
of  the  Lord  blamelefs  ? 

One  requeft,  my  brethren,  I  pray  you  to  grant  me,  and 
it  is  this :  Search  the  fcriptures  devoutly,  and  follow  me  fo 
£ar  as  I  follow  Jefus  Chrilt,  your  Lord  and  mine. 


Serin.  VI. J  &f  Baptifm,  6i 


SERMON    VI. 


MATTHEW  xxviii.  19,  20. 

Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptixhig  them  in  ti: 

of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghofl ;  teaching 
them  to  obferve  ail  things  tuhaifoevir  I  have  commanded  you  : 
And,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alivay,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
ivor  Id.      Amen. 

I  HAVE  already  obferved  to  you  that  Chrill  Jefus,  the 
Head  of  the  church,  and  Lord  of  all,  was  now  confti- 
tuting  his  prefent  and  fucceeding   difciples  to  be  apoftle^ 
unto  all  nations.     My  text  is  their  commiffion,  and  general 
and  particular  orders.     In  it  they  are  directed — 
J.     To  go  and  difciple  all  nations. 

II.  To  baptize  them  in  the  name  of  die  Father,  &c, 

I I I.  He  directs  thefe  newly  conflitutgd.  apoftles,  and  all 
their  fucceffors,  to  teach  their  baptized  difciples  to  obferve 
all  things  whatfoever  he  had  given  in  commandment. 

Laflly.  For  their  encouragement  and  comfort,  he  adds, 
And,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world.     Amen. 

What  1  purpofed  to  fay  to  you,  particularly,  upon  the 
fecond  proportion,  I  have  raid.     I  now  recur  to  the 

I.  Which  contains  Chrift's  command  to  his  difciples  to 
go  and  difciple  all  nations. 

I  have  already  fhowed  you  what  baptifm  is,>  and  the 
defign  of  it.  I  am  now,  if  the  Lord  will,  to  lay  open  what 
is  commanded  to  be  done  before  baptifm  be  adminiftered, 
alfo  the  evidence  which  the  Lord  may  afford  me  to  prove 
to  you  that  my  inftrucHon  is  of  him. 

Your  feelings,  my  brethren  and  peopje,  have  no  doubt 
been  highly  wrought  up,  whilft  I  have  opened  before  you 
one  of  the  laws  of  Chrill's  kingdom  amongft  men.  I  have 
Hill  more  things  to  fay  unto  you  reflecting  the  rules  and 
regulations  of  this  kingdom.  I  pray  the  Lord,  that  yo-ir 
minds  may  be  fo  prepared  to  hear,  that  you  may  not  fc-r- 
fake  me  and  flee,  as  many  of  Chrill's  profeffed  friends  did, 
F 


62  The  Mode  and  Subjects        [Serm.  VI. 

when  he  preached  on  a  fubjeci  which  greatly  crofted  their 
prejudices  and  carnal  expectations. 

Your  bufy  minds,  no  doubt,  will,  before  you  are  aware, 
be  inquiring  what  great  and  good  men,  in  our  days  and  in 
the  days  of  our  fathers,  have  faid  and  thought  of  thefe 
things ;  but  we  fhould  look  farther  back  than  to  our  fore- 
fathers. The  man  Chrift  Jefus,  and  his  infpired  prophets 
and  apoftles,  fhould  be  the  men  of  our  counlel.  Should  I 
fpeak  according  to  thefe,  you  may  hearken  to  me  with 
iafety  ;  if  contrary,  convict  me  by  the  word  and  teftimony 
©f  Jefus  Chrift  ;  for  I  appeal  to  thefe,  for  by  them  1  ought 
to  be  judged. 

One  requeft,  my  hearers,  I  pray  you  to  grant  me  ; 
namely — Lay  prejudice  afide,  and  let  fcripture,  reafon  and 
common  fenfe  be  heard  for  a  few  minutes. 

Surely  you  muft  coniider  my  cafe  more  trying  than  any 
of  yours.  For  it  is,  perhaps,  as  difficult  for  me  to  combat 
my  own  prejudices  and  carnal  feelings,  as  it  is  for  any  of 
you  to  contend  with  his  :  Befides  this,  I  have  to  look  your 
*  prejudices  in  the  face,  while  1  venture  to  bring  any  of  your 
iAd  practices  to  the  fcriptures  for  trial.  Yes,  more  than  all 
this,  I  have  many  trials  to  encounter,  which  you  have  not, 
nor  can  have. 

I  fhould  net  have  made  the  attempt  to  bring  our  former 
practice  to  the  ftandard  for  trial,  had  not  my  difficulties 
been  fo  great,  that  I  durft  proceed  no  farther,  without 
proving  my  works.  One  of  my  practice*  hath  been  weigh- 
ed in  the  balance,  and  is  found  wanting.  I  am  now,  if  my 
heart  deceive  me  not,  willing  to  lead  another  of  my  woik^, 
or  the  fubjec"rs  on  which  fame  of  my  works  have  been,  to 
the  bar  for  trial.  If  this  fhall  be  found  of  wood,  hay  or 
ftubble,  may  the  fire  of  truth  burn  it  up,  and  may  the  lire 
oi  love  caufe  me  to  rejoice  while  it  fhall  be  confuming. 

The  proportion  which  will  bring  this  Other  of  my  works 
to  the  trial,  is — 

Chrift  commands  his  miuifters  to  go  and  difciple  al!  na- 
tions. I  have  engaged  to  be  one  of  thefe  minifters.  The 
command  is,  therefore,  binding  upon  me.  I  have  gone 
forth,  that  I  might  obey.  The  great  thing  to  be  deter- 
mined is,  whether  I  have  underftood  what  it  is  to  difciple, 
or  to  make  difciples,  and  have  practifed  accordingly. 


SfeVm.  VI.]  bf  Baptifnu  .  6$ 

The  important  queftion  to  be/decided  is  jtffl;  this  :  If  I 
difciple  any  of  you  who  arc  parents,  do  I,  as  a  neceftary 
eonfequencej  difciple  all  your  children  and  houfeholds  ? 

The  only  difficulty,  in  this  queftion,  relates  to  children 
and  houfeholds.  What  it  is  to  difciple  the  mafter  c£  a 
family)  is  a  thing  in  which  Chriftians  generally  agree. 

1  ought  juft  to  remark  to  you,  that  matheteufdte,  to  teach* 
is,  in  its  literal  and  genuine  fenfe,  to  difciple,  or  lb  to  teach 
as  to  make  difciples. 

To  bring  the  queftion  before  you  as  fully  as  I  can,  ) 
wifh  you,  each  one  of  you,  to  fix  his  attention  upon  forre 
one  family  in  this  town,  in  which  family  not  a  Ghriftian  is 
to  be  found.  If  each  one  have  his  mind  fixed  upon  fuch  ?. 
Chriftlefs  houfehold,  I  will  now  put  the  queftion  : — 

Suppofe  I,  inftrumentally,  difciple  the  Either  of  this 
iamily,  do  1,  as  a  certain  cc  nfeqiunce,  make  difc  pigs  of 
the  whole  family  ? 

Before  you  determine  the  qucfliwn,  it  may  be  well  tQ  f  " 
in  your  minds  what  a  diiciple  is.  Let  the  fcriptures  fpeak. 
The  difcipks  were  called  Chriftians  tint  at  Antioch,  Ads  xi. 
26.  The  commiftion  which  Chrift  gave  to  the  firft  min- 
ifters,  and  to  all  fucceeding  ones,  as  recorded  Mark  xvi. 
15,  16,  is,  Go  ye  into'all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gofpel 
to  every  creature  ;  he  that  belicveth,  &c.  Here  a  believer 
is  the  fame  as  a  difciple.  Here  we  fee  a  difciple,  in  the 
fenfe  of  my  text,  is  a  believer,  a  btdiever  in  Chrift,  a  Ghrif- 
tian. This  is  the  idea  which  the  New-Teftament,  from 
beginning  to  end,  gives  us  of  a  difciple.  There  is,  how- 
ever, mention  made  of  difciples,  who  were  fo  but  by  pro- 
feffion,  or  who  were  vifible  difciples  only  ;  not  having  the 
4ove  of  God  in  them. 

Now  try  the  queftion  with  refpecl  to  both  forts  of  thefe 
difciples. 

Suppofe  T,  inftrumentally,  difciple  the  father  of  a  Chrift- 
lefs family,  do  I,  as  a  neceftary  confequence,  make  Chrif- 
tians of  all  in  his  boufe  ?  You  will  pleafe  to  make  up  your 
minds,  on  this  queftion,  decidedly. 

vSuppofe  again,  that  I,  inftrumentally,  difciple  the  father 
of  a  Chriftlefs  family,  do  I,  as  a  neceftary  confequence, 
make  ivfiblc  difciples  of  all  his  family  I   Let  your  minds  be 
rly  determined  as  to  the  anfwer. 

Once  more  ;  fuppofe  I,  by  delivering  the  Lord's  meflao-e, 
convert,   or  make  a  difciple  of  the  father  of  a  Chriftlefs 


Mode  and  Subjccls       [Serm.  VI. 

family,  do  I,  of  neceflary  confequence,  make  my  one  of 
oufehold  bef!des  himfelf  a  difciple  ?* 

Let  fcripture,  let  reafon,  let  common  fenfe,  let  any  thing 
fpeak,  which  \v i i  1  fpeak  the  truth,  and  determine  there 
qiieftions.     Confider,  take  advice,  and  fpeak  your  minds. 

Can  you  fuppckvor  can  you  not,  that  to  make  a  lather 
of  a  family  a  diiciple,  his  wife,  his  fervants,  and  his  chil- 
dren, are  al!  difciples  of  courfe,  or  of  neceifary  confequence  ? 

Is  not  this  a  clear  cafe  1  and  yet  the  great  and  moment- 
ous lubjeet  before  us  turns  altogether  upon  the  anfwer  of 
this  quefticn. 

If  difcipling  the  father  of  a  family  renders  all  his  houfe 
difciples,  they  are  all  i;jbje<5ts  of  baptifm,  they  have  the 
fcripture  qualiri  ration  for  it  ;  if  it  do  not,  then  they  have 
not  the  qualification  which  my  text  requires  to  be  in  thofe 
who  are  baptized. 

You  will  judge  for  yourfelves  whether  houfeholds  do 
thus  become  difciples  ;  as  for  the  reft,  the  fcriptures  deter- 
mine :  if  they  be  difciples,  they  are  to  be  baptized  ;  if  not, 
they  are  not  to  be. 

I  know  what  ycur  anfwer  muft  be,  for  by  inconteftable 

facts,  in  this  town,  the  difcipling  of  a  father  of  a  family 

not  difciple  his  houfehold  ;    it  does  not  even  make 

them  viiible  difciples,  or  give  them  even  the  appearance  of 

being  fo. 

The  following  is  for  evidence,  that  perfons  muft  be  made 
difciples  before  they  are  baptized. 

i.  John  made  his  hearers  difciples  before  he  baptized 
them.  He  required,  in  order  for  baptifm,  that  they  ihculd 
bring  forth  fruits  meet  for,  or  as  evidence  of,  repentance, 
Matt.  jii.  8.  and  Luke  iii.  8. 

2.  Chrill's  difciples  baptized  none  but  fuch  as  were 
made  difciples  firft,  John  iv.  i,  2. 

3.  Chrift,  in  my  text,  gives  no  liberty  to  baptize  any 
but  fuch  as  are  rirft  difcipled.  Yes,  he  commands  his  min- 
ifters  to  difciple  before  they  baptize. 

The  account  which  Ma  Us  of  the  Apoftles'  a  rh- 

milTion,   and    of  the   13aptiirn.il    Initiation,   is    c 
evidence  in  this  matter,  xvith  chapter,  15.I1  and  16th  v cries  : 
•  Preach  the  gofpel  to  every  creature  :    He  that  bclieveth 

*  Prejudice  may  reply,  Yr,u  are  to  difciple  the  houfehold  b) 
dzing  liicm.     1  his  cpntrddicb  my  text,  i;m  I  c  ■:  fiMJ. 


Serm.  VI.  j  of  Baptifm.  65 

and  is  baptized,'  Sec.  Here  believing  is  put  before  baptifm. 
The  way  adopted  by  fome  to  avoid  the  force  of  this  text 
is,  if  they  be  baptized,  fay  they,  no  matter  when,  before  or 
after  believing.  This  way  of  getting  clear  of  the  diificulty 
appears  neither  wife  nor  candid  ;  for  it  injures  the  plain 
meaning  of  the  text,  and  makes  Matthew's  and  Mark's 
account  of  the  commiffion  to  difagree. 

What  remains  are  a  number  of  plain  truths,  fafts  and 
confequences,  which  have  a  more  near  or  remote  relation 
with  the  fubject  on  hand,  and  may  ferve  to  throw  light 
upon  it. 

In   the  First  place,  we  may  take   notice   of  two  par- 
ticulars, which  perhaps  hare  not  been  fufficiently  noticed. 
One  is,  the  ceremonial  law.  and  the  covenant  ofcirculm- 
cifion  which  was  annexed  to  it,  appear  to  be  difannulled 
and  pa  ft  away. 

The  following  may  make  this  matter  plain  :  The  dif- 
annulling  or  abolifhing  of  the  law  we  fee,  Heb.  vii.  iS. 
There  is  verily  a  difannulling  of  the  commandment  going 
before,  for  the  weaknefs  and  unprofltablenefs  thereof.  Alio 
Gal.  iii.  19,  Wherefore  then  ferveth  the  law  ?  It  was  added 
becaufe  of  tranfgreffions,  till  the  feed  mould  come  to  h/honr 
the  promtfe  was  made.  What  feed  this  is,  to  whom  the 
promife  was  made,  we  are  told  in  the  16th  verfe  of  the  fame 
chapter,  "  Now  to  Abraham  and  his  feed  were  the  promifes 
made  :  He  faith  not  to  feeds,  as  of  many  ;  but  as  of  one, 
And  to  thy  feed,  which  is  Chrift."  We  hence  fee,  that 
Chrift  was  the  feed  to  whom  the  promifes  were  made,  and 
that  the  laiv  (the  ceremonial  law)  was  added  becaufe 
tranfgrefllons,  till  the  feed,  i.  e.  Chrift,  ihould  come.  It  i- 
hence  plain,  that  the  ceremonial  law  was  to  continue  no 
longer  than  till  Chrift  came. 

The  covenant  of  circumcifion  appears  to  be  annexed  to 
this  law.     For  fays  Jefus  Chrift,  John  vii.  23,  If  a  man  on 
the  fabbath  day  receive  circumcifion,  that  the  laiv  of  Mofcs 
'  fhonld  not  be  broken,  are  ye  angry  at  me  ?  & c. 

That  this  covenant  of  circumcifion,  or  the  Sinai  covenant, 
which  includes  it,  hath  paffed  away,  or  is  difannulled,  fee 
Heb.  viii.  13.  *  In  that  he  faith  a  new  covenant,  he  hath 
made  the  firft  old  :  now  that  which  decayeth  and  waxcth 
old,  is  ready  to  vaniUi  away.' 

Befides,  circumcifion  is  evidently  a  very  important  part 
a>(  that  law,  which  is  difannulled ;  for,  faith  Paul  to  the  Ga- 
F2 


66  The  Mode  find  Subjects        [Sc-rm.  V!. 

latians,  chap.  v.  2,  3.  If  ye  be  circumcijed  Chrift  ihall  profit 
you  nothing.  For  I  teftify  again,  fays  he,  to  every  man  that 
is  circumcijed,  that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law. 

It  is  hence  plain,  that  the  ceremonial  law  is  no  longer 
bidding  ;  and  that  the  covenant  of  circumcifion,  which  was 
incorporated  with  it,  hath  vanifhed  away. 

The  other  particular  is  this  ;  the  promifes  which  were 
made  to  Abraham  and  his  feed,  were  not  made  to  him  in 
circumcifion,  but  in  uncircumcifton  ;  and  the  covenant  which 
was  confirmed  of  God  to  Abraham  in  Chrift,  was  while  he 
was  in  uncircvmcifi-,n,  and  about  twenty-four  years  before 
the  covenant  of  circumcijion  was  given.  Rom.  iv.  8,  9,  10. 
—Gal.  hi.  j 6,  17. — Gen.  xii.  3,  4,  7,  and  xvit.  10,  17. 

Moreover,  when  Paul  fpeaks  of  the  covenant  which  was- 
c^nfirmed  of  God  in  Chrift,  he  points  out  the  exact  year 
when  this  was  made  known  or  confirmed  with  Abraham, 
as  though  he  had  a  forefight,  as  certainly  the  Holy  Ghort 
had,  of  the  contention  which  fhouki  be  long  continued  for 
Want  of  judicioufly  understanding  what  covenant  fliculd  be 
difannulled,  and  what  covenant  the  law  could  not  diiannul. 
He  tells  us,  Gal.  iii.  17,  that  this  covenant,  which  cannot 
be  made  void,  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  before 
the  law  ;  whereas  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  was  about 
four  hundred  and  fix  years  before  the  law,  with  which  cir- 
cumcifion was  united. 

Seeing  matters  are  thus,  what,  I  pray  you,   my  hearers, 

have  we  to  do  with  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  ?    If  we 

keep  it,  Chrift  ihall  profit  us  nothing  ;  if  we  obferve  fome- 

«thing  which  we  fubftitute  in  its  place,  Chrift  may  profit  us 

as  little  in  fuch  obfervance. 

I  know  it  will  be  aiked,  Is  not  the  church  the  fame  now 
that  it  was  in  Abraham's  day  ?  I  anfwer,  yes,  and  the 
fame  that  it  was  in  Noah's,  Enoch's  and  Adam's,  and  the 
fame  that  it  ever  will  be.  It  will  be  aiked  again,  Is  not  the 
covenant  the  fame  which  it  was  in  Abraham's  time  ?  Yes, 
the  covenant  which  was  confirmed  of  God  in  Chrift  is  un- 
changeably the  fame  ;  but  the  covenant  of  circumcifion 
which  God  made  with  Abraham,  renewed  with  Ifaac  and 
Jacob,  and  folemnized  with  Ifrael  in  the  wildernefs,  (Deut. 
sxix.  10,  11,  12,  13,)  is  far  from  being  the  covenant,  the 
new  covenant,  which  God  makes  with  the  houfe  of  Ifrael  in 
our  day.  The  covenant  of  circumcifion  was,  more 
;han  1700  years  ago,  decaying,  waxing  old,  and  ready  to 


Serin.  VI.]  of  B  apt  if m.  6j 

vaniih  away.  But  you  will  again  fay,  Is  not  the  church 
conipoied  of  parents  and  children,  and  of  houfeholds,  now, 
as  it  was  in  Abraham's  day  ?  Let  Paul  anfwer  how  it  was 
(as  touching  the  gofpel)  in  Abraham's  day  and  after. 
Rom.  ix.  6,  7,  8.  '  They  are  not  all  Ii'rael  which  are  of  Ifrael, 
neither  becaufe  they  are  the  feed  of  Abraham,  are  they  all  chil- 
dren: but  in  Ifaacfhall  thy  feed  be  called.  That  is, they  that  are 
the  children  of  the  fleih,  thefe  are  not  the  children  of  God  : 
but  the  children  of  the  promife  are  counted  for  the  ieed. 
Juft  {o  now.  The  children  of  God,  the  children  of  the 
promife  are  counted  for  the  feed,  and  compofe  the  church  ; 
and  of  ihofe  who  appear  thus  mould  the  vifible  church  be 
made  up,  and  of  none  elie.  But,  if  by  the  quefticn  be 
meant,  Does  not  church-memberihip  defcend  from  parents 
to  children,  and  from  mailers  to  fervants,  as  it  appears  to 
have  done  under  the  old  covenant  of  circumcihon  ?  The 
anfwer  is.  The  New-Teilament  no  where -acknowledges,  nor 
does  it  know,  any  thing  about  a  church  thus  made  up.  "jt 
would  that  all  good  men  would  conient  to  take  New-Tefta» 
meat  directions  and  examples  by  which  to  conftitute  and 
guide  Nevv-Teftameiit  churches. 

But  it  will  be  afeed  once  more,  Hath  not  baptifm  come 
into  the  place  of  circumcihon,  and  to  be  applied  to  hmilar 
fubjects  ?  Anfwer.  Circumcifion  was  a  poiitive  inftitution, 
and  fo  is  baptifm.  Abraham  and  the  Ifraelites  knew  noth- 
ing to  whom  circumcifion  ihould  be  adminiftered,  but  as 
they  received  direction  from  the  Divine  Indicator ;  juft  fo 
it  is  with  refpect  to  the  adminiftration  of  baptifm.  The 
Christians  at  Antioch,  the  Elders  at  Jerufalem,  the 
church  of  Galatia,  and  Paul  and  Barnabas,  knew 
nothing  of  baptifm  being  fubftituted  for  circumcifion. 
Ails  xv.  x  to  35  ;  Gal.  iii.  and  v.  chapters.  We  know 
nothing,  and  can  know  nothing,  as  to  whom  baptifm  is  to 
be  adminiftered,  but  from  what  Chrift  hath  told  us  as  to 
the  fubjects.      Now — 

Secondly^  I  alk,  What  evidence  have  we  from  the  Bible 
that  infants  are  to  be  baptized  ? 

You  may  reply,  They  are  included  in  the  covenant.  What 
covenant?  In  that  of  circumcifion  ?  Surely  not,  for  that 
hath  vanifhed  away.  If  you  fay,  In  the  covenant  that  was 
confirmed  of  God  in  Chrift,  I  an/wsr,  It  was  not  this  cove- 
nant which  entitled  Abraham's  houfehold  to  circumcifion  ; 


68  The  Mode  and  Subjefls        [Serm.  VI. 

therefore,  though  your  children  be  in  this  covenant,  that 
does  not,  of  itfelf,  entitle  them  to  baptifm  ;  whether  bap- 
tifm  be  in  the  place  of  circumcifion,  or  not.  You  will  thea 
fay,  What  can  entitle  our  children  to  baptifm  ?  Anjiuer. 
Their  being  difciples,  and  fo  coming  within  the  compafs,  or 
pale,  of  ^he  baptifmal  inftitution. 

As  we  can  know  nothing  of  the  fubjecls  of  baptifm,  any 
more  than  Abraham  and  Ifrael  could  of  the  fubjecls  of  cir- 
cumcifion, but  from  what  we  are  informed  in  the  inditu- 
tion,  and  in  what  is  faid  upon  it,  we  will  inquire  what  the 
Bible  faith  of  this  matter. 

If  the  Lord,  in  his  word,  hath  not  given  us  fufficient  in- 
ftru&ion  upon  this  fubjecl,  we  mult  prattife  in  the  dark,  for 
we  have  no  where  elfe  to  go. 

We  will  begin  with  John.  I.  Did  he  baptize  any  chil- 
dren ?  We  have  no  evidence  that  he  did.  Befides,  he  told 
the  multitude  which  attended  his  miniftry,  not  to  plead 
Abraham,  or  Abraham's  covenant,  as  a  title  to  baptifm. 
Matt.  iii.  7,  8,  9,  10. 

2.  Did  Chrift's  difciples,  whilft  he  was  with  them,  and 
whilft  they  made  and  baptized  more  difciples  than  John,  bap- 
tize infants,  or  any  viiibly  unbelieving  children  ?  No  evi- 
dence that  they  did. 

3.  Is  there  any  evidence  frrm  my  text,  which  contains 
the  words  of  the  inftitution,  that  infants,  or  unbelieving 
houfeholds,  were  to  be  baptized  ?     None,  but  the  contrary. 

4.  Is  there  any  palfage  in  the  New-Teftament,  which 
commands,  or  fays  fo  much  as  one  word,  that  infants  are 
to  be  baptized  ?     Not  one. 

5.  Is  there  any  example,  which  fliows  that  the  apoftles 
baptized  any  upon  the  faith  of  parents,  or  mailers,  or  upon 
the  faith  or  promifes  of  any  others  ? 

I  know,  my  brethren,  there  are  three  inftances,  which 
are  fuppofed  by  fome  to  favour  the  affirmative  of  the  ques- 
tion. I  have  rather  been  of  the  fame  opinion.  If  it  be  fo, 
may  facts  convince  us. 

We  will  look  at  each  of  thefe  examples  feparately. 

The  firft  fuppofed  example  we  find  at  Philippi.  Here 
was  a  woman,  named  Lydia  ;  Ihe  appears  to  have  been  a 
woman  of  bufinefs.  She  belonged  to  Thyatira,  but  was 
now  at  Philippi,  probably  felling  her  merchandize,  with  fev- 
eral  attendants.  The  hiftory  is  thus  related,  Acls  xvi.  1 3th, 
14th  and  15th  verfes,     "  On  the  fabbath  day,  we  (Paul  and 


Serin.  VI.]  tf  Baptifm.  6| 

other  difciples)  went  out  of  the  city,  by  a  river  fide,  where 
prayer  was  wont  to  be  made,  and  we  fat  down,  and  fpake 
unto  the  women  who  reforted  thither.  And  a  certain  wo- 
man, named  Lydia,  a  feller  of  purple,  of  the  city  cf  Thya- 
tira,  who  worlhipped  God,  heard  us,  whofe  heart  the  Lord 
opened,  that  me  attended  unto  the  things  which  were  fpoken 
of  Paul.  And  when  ihe  was  baptized  and  her  houfehold, 
ilie  befought  us,  faying,  If  ye  have  judged  me  to  be  faith- 
ful to  the  Lord,  come  into  my  houie  and  abide  there." 

This  is  all  we  know  of  the  matter.  She  belonged  to  anoth- 
er city.  She  worlhipped  God.  She  was,  on  the  fabbath 
day,  by  the  fide  of  a  river,  where  prayer  was  wont  to  be 
made.  The  Lord  opened  her  heart  to  attend  to  what  Paul 
faid.  Her  fervants  were  with  her.  She  had  a  houfe,  either 
her  own,  or  one  taken  for  the  time.  She  was  baptized,  and 
her  houfehold.  As  to  her  having  infants  with  her,  you  can 
tell,  as  well  as  I.  Moreover,  whether  her  fervants  believed 
the  words  of  Paul,  you  can,  if  you  attend  to  the  circum- 
ftances,  form  as  correct  a  judgment,  perhaps,  as  any  other 
can  make  up  for  you. 

The  things  to  be  confidered  are,  i.  Lydia  was  a  godly 
woman.  2.  She  attended  meeting.  Paul  found  her  where 
prayer  was  wont  to  be  made,  where  religious  women  had 
-been  accuRomed  to  meet.  3.  She,  like  other  religious  peo- 
ple, took  her  houfehold  to  meeting  with  her.  4.  It  appears 
that  Paul  baptized  none  of  her  houfehold,  but  fuch  as  were 
with  her  at  the  female  praying  meeting.  5.  The  ftrong 
probability  is,  that  Lydia,  being  a  pious  woman,  one  who 
worlhipped  God,  would  felecl  for  her  attendants,  maidens 
or  fervants  who  alfo  were  worfhippers  of  God.  In  verfe 
40,  we  are  told,  the  apoftles  entered  into  the  houfe  of  Lydia, 
comforted  the  brethren,  &c.  You  will  weigh  thefe  circum- 
ftances,  and  make  up  for  yourfelves,  fo  far  as  you-  can,  a 
righteous  judgment. 

The  next  example  is  recorded  in  the  fame  chapter,  and 
appears  to  be  in  fame  city.  The  hiftory  of  the  matter  is 
contained  in  the  25th  verfe,  and  on  to  the  34th.  The  no- 
ticeable facts,  and  on  which  we  muff  make  up  our  judg- 
ment, are — The  jailer  fays,  Sirs,  What  muft  I  do  to  be  fa- 
Ted  ?  Paul  and  Silas  anfwered,  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jefbs 
Chrtft,  and  thou  (halt  be  faved,  and  thy  houfe.  And  they 
/'pake  unto  him  the-  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were 


Jc  The  Mode  and  Subjefts       [Serm.  VL 

in  his  houfe.     And  he  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his,  ftraight- 
way — and  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all  his  houfe. 

Here  are  three  things  to  be  put  together.  I.  The  word, 
of  the  Lord  Jefus  was  fpoken  to  them  all.  2.  They  were" 
all  baptized.  3.  The^y  all  believed  in  God.  Whether  here 
be  any  example  of  infant  baptifm,  you  will  judge,  each  one 
for  himfelf. 

As  fome  have  fuppofed  that  this  paffage,  and  a  few  others 
«f  fimilar  import,  afford  an  argument  in  favour  of  fprink- 
lrng,  it  may  be  well  to  give  it  a  moment's  confideration. 
Here  we  are  told,  that  the  keeper  of  the  prifon  brought  out 
Paul  and  Silas.  Where  he  brought  them  to,  feems  plainly 
enough  to  be  gathered  from  the  3 2d  verfi?,  in  which  we  find 
ihem  fpeaking  to  the  jailer  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to 
all  that  were  in  his  houfe.  In  the  next  verfe  we  are  informed 
that  the  jailer  and  all  his  were  baptized.  Where  they  were 
baptized,  we  are  not  told.  One  thing  however  is  plain,  it 
was  not  in  the  houfe  ;  for  in  vtrfe  34  it  is  faicl,  When  (i.  e. 
after  the  houfehold  were  baptized)  he  had  brought  them 
into  his  houfe,  hefet  meat  before  them,  and  rejoiced,  believ- 
ing in  God,  with  all  his  houfe.  From  thefe  obfervations, 
the  following  things  appear  : — 

1.  That  Paul  and  Silas  were  in  the  jailer's  houfe,  when 
they  fpake  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  all  that  were  in  his 
houfe.  2.  That  when  the  ordinance  of  baptifm  was  admin- 
iftered,  they  were  not  in  his  houfe.  3.  That  the  mode 
of  baptizing  then  in  ufe  rendered  it  inconvenient  to  be  per- 
formed in  the  jailer's  houfe.  4.  After  the  ordinance  was 
adminiftered,  they  went  into  the  houfe.  How  this  favours 
fprinkling  I  fee  not. 

The  other  fuppofed  example  is  in  I  Cor.  i.  1 6,  where 
Paul  fays,  I  baptized  alfo  the  houfehold  of  Stephanas.  In 
the  xvi.  chap.  15th  verfe,  we  have  a  lhort  hiftory  of  Ste- 
phanas's  houfehold  ;  it  is  thus,  "  Ye  know  the  houfehold  of 
Stephanas,  that  it  is  the  firft  fruits  of  Achaia,  and  that  they 
have  addicted  themfelves  to  the  miniftry  of  the  faints." 
Whether  there  is  here  found  any  evidence  of  infant  baptifm, 
you  will  determine  for  yourfelves. 

6.  Are  the  encouragements  which  are  given  to  parents  in 
behalf  of  their  children,  made  to  their  having  them  baptized  r 
or  are  the  blefiings  connected  with  their  dedicating  them  to 
the  Lord,  and  with  their  bringing  them  up  in  his  nurture 
and  admonition  ?    With  which,  your  Bibles  will  inform  you- 


Serm.  VI.]  of  Baptifm.  7 1 

7.  Do  we,  or  do  any,  pretend,  that  there  is  any  certain 
evidence,  from  either  precept  or  example,  for  the  baptizing 
of  infants  ?  Indeed  there  is  non*.  Probably  not  many  fup- 
pofe  it. 

8.  Is  there,  as  fome  have  affirmed,  the  fame  evidence 
for  baptizing  infants,  that  there  is  for  obferving  the  Lord's 
clay,  for  admitting  females  to  communion,  and  which  there 
is  for  family  prayer  ? 

There  is  a  day  called  the  Lord's  day,  and  religious  things 
were  to  be  obferved  on  it.  Are  there  infants,  who  are  call- 
ed baptized  infants,  and  are  they  to  be  attended  to  as  fuch  ? 

Females  and  males  are  declared  to  be  all  one  in  Chrift, 
and  fo  fit  fubjecls  for  the  communion  of  faints.  Are  in- 
fants unequivocally  declared  to  be  fit  fubje&s  of  baptifm  ? 

We  have  examples  of  family  prayer,  and  are  commanded 
to  pray  with  all  prayer.  Are  there  fcripture  examples  of 
infant  baptifm,  and  aie  we  commanded  to  baptize  all ;  and 
fo  are  infants  included  ? 

9.  Ought  I  to  teach  you  infant  baptifm,  if  our  Lord 
Jefus  Chrift  hath  no  where  directed  me  to  do  thus  ? 

10.  Hath  Jefus  Chrift  fpoken  one  word  of  baptifm,  as 
being  fubftituted  for  circumcifion  ?  Hath  he  any  where  com- 
manded his  minifters  to  teach  this  fubftitution  ? 

Thirdly.  Shall  we  go,  and  are  we  under  the  neceffity  of 
going,  to  the  law  and  covenant  of  circumcifion,  to  prove  in- 
fant baptifm,  when  both  this  law  and  covenant  have  long 
fince  waxed  old,  been  repealed,  and  have  'perifhed  ?  Heb. 
vii.  18,  19,  and  viii.  13. 

But  you  will  afk,  Are  not  the  bleffiogs  of  Abraham 
come  on  the  Gentiles  ?  dnf.  Yes.  You  will  then  fay,  Are 
not  our  children  included  in  the  promife  ?  Anfwer.  If  they 
be  Chrift's,  then  are  they  Abraham's  fetd,  and  heirs  accord- 
ing to  the  promife.  Gal.  iii.  29.  Abraham's  children,  after 
the  flefh,  were  not  included  in  the  promife,  as  the  Pedobap- 
tifts  of  cur  day  would  have  theirs.  But  you  will  fay  again, 
Are  not  our  children  included  in  the  covenant  ?  In  what 
covenant  ?  In  that  of  circumcifion  ?'  Surely  not.  For  though 
that  covenant  was  often  renewed,  yet  it  hath  long  fince 
paffed  away.  Is  your  queftion  this  ?  Are  they  not  included 
in  that  covenant,  which  was  confirmed  of  God  in  Chrift, 
twenty-four  years  previoufly  to  the  covenant  of  circumci- 
fion ?  I  anfwer,  No  man  knoweth,  nor  can  know,  but  a* 
your  children  give  evidence,  that  they  poflcfs  the   Spirit  of 


yz  The  Mode  and  Subjccls        [Serm.  VI. 

Chrift.  Bllt  as  1  have  obfervcd  to  you  before,  fo  I  fay 
again,  even  were  your  children  included  in  this  covenant, 
and  faints  ;  this  does  not  of  itfelf  give  them  anv  right  to 
baptifm,  any  more,  than  Abraham's  being  included  in  the 
fame  covenant  gave  him  a  right  to  circumcifion.  This  cov- 
enant determines  nothing  as  to  the  one,  or  the  other. 
The  covenant  of  circumcifion  determined  who  were  to  be 
circumcifed.  So  the  ordinance  or  inltirution  cf  Baptifm, 
determines  who  are  to  be  baptized.  One  determines  no 
more  who  are  to  be  admitted  to  the  other,  than  does  the 
covenant  of  an  everlafting  prieflhood  (Numb.  xxv.  13.)  de- 
termine who  ihall  be  minifters  in  gcipel  days.  In  ihorr, 
there  is  no  arguing  from  one  to  the  other  in  this  matter. 
They  are  both  of  them  pofitive  inftitutions,  and  nothing  can 
be  known  of  either,  but  what  is  revealed  in  its  particular 
inftitution. 

While  viewing  this  fnhject  you  will  inquire,  What  will 
become  of  our  children  ?  I  anfwer,  God  only  knoweth. 
You  may  rejoin  ;  But  what  fliall  we  do  for  them  ?  jlvj. 
Dedicate  them  to  God,  and,  like  faithful  Chriftians,  bring 
them  up  for  him. 

Fourthly.  We  will  now  attend  to  fome  legitimate  confe- 
quences  which  follow,  upon  fuppofition  that  the  fubjtcts  of 
baptifm  are  to  be  determined  from  the  fubjecls  of  circumci- 
fion. 

1.  One  confequence  is,  every  man  who  is  converted  to 
theChriftian  religion  is  to  be  baptized,  and  ail  his  houfehold, 
though  he  may  have  three  hundred  and  feventeen  training 
foldiers  born  in  his  own  houfe.  Not  only  are  thefe  foldiers 
to  be  baptized,  but  their  wives,  children,  and  all  other  fer- 
vants,  who  belong  to  this  great  man's  houfe.  A  thoufand 
infidels  are  to  be  baptized,  becaufe  one  great  man,  their 
mafter,  is  christianized. 

2.  Thefe  foldiers,  with  their  wives,  children  and  fervants, 
are  all  to  be  confidered  and  treated  as  church  members,  or 
as  being  in  covenant.  I  confels  this  does  not  look  to  me 
gofpel-like. 

3.  Another  confequence  is,  the  adults  among  thefe,  and 
among  all  others,  who  are-  baptized,  are  not  only  to  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  communion,  but  required  to  come.  I  aik, 
could  fuch  a  communion  be  called  the  communion  oi: 
faints  ? — one  great  and  good  man,  with  hundreds  of  uncon 
verted  fervants. 


Serin.  VI.]  of  Baptlfm.  7$ 

4.  All  who  have  been  baptized,  and  have  not,  for  mis- 
demeanor, been  expelled  the  church,  have  a  right  to  baptifm 
for  their  children  :  and  no  man  may  forb'd  them. 

5.  Another  confequence  is,  notwithstanding  Chrift  faith, 
My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world  ;  yet  the  regulations  were 
fuch,  efpecially  the  mean  of  admilTion  into  it,  as  ftrongly, 
and  of  infallible  confequence,  tended  to  make  it  of  this  world, 
and  that  abundantly  fo. 

6.  Another  confequence  is,  many  learned  and  pious 
minifters  of  New-England  are  inconfiltent  with  themfelves, 
in  requiring  of  perfons  baptized  in  infancy  a  profeffion  of 
experimental  religion,  as  a  term  of  communion.  It  was  not 
fo  done  in  Ifrael. 

7.  Another  confequence  is,  many  of  the  fame  pious  and 
learned  minifters  are  very  inconfiltent  with  themfelves,  in 
refufing  baptifm  to  the  children  of  fuch  as  are,  by  their  bap- 
tifm, in  regular  church  memberfhrp,  or  in  covenant,  as  it  ie 
termed. 

I  have  taken,  as  you  obferve,  for  granted,  what  I  do  not 
believe  to  be  true,  that  fprinkling,  or  a  very  partial  wafliing, 
is  baptifm. 

Lafiiy.  Another  confequence  is,  it  doth,  fo  far  as  it  hath 
\%s  pcrfeQ  work,  deftroy  the  very  idea  of  die  gofpel  church, 
contradict  the  prophets,  and  make  Paul,  and  others,  fpeak 
not  the  truth,  and  it  throws  us  back  to  the  Mate  of  the  Jew- 
iih  church. 

Jeremiah,  prophefying  of  the  gofpel  church,  faith,  chip. 
txxx.  ^t  to  34,  Behold  the  days  come,  faith  the  Lord,  that 
1  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  houfe  of  ifrael,  and 
with  the  houfe  of  Judah  ;  not  according  to  the  covenant 
that  I  made  with  your  fathers,  in  the  day  that  I  took  them 
by  the  hand  to  bring  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt;  but 
this  {hall  be  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the  houfe  of 
Ifrael,  After  thofe  days,  faith  the  Lord,  I  will  put  my  law 
it  their  inward  parts,  and  write  it  in  their  hearts  ;  and  will 
be  their  God,  and  they  fiiall  be  my  people.  And  they  (hall 
teach  no  more  every  man  his  neighbour,  and  every  man 
his  brother,  faying,  Know  the  Lord,  for  they  {hall  all 
know  me,  from  the  leaft  of  them,  unto  the  greateft  of  them, 
faith  the  Lord. 

If  this  means  any  thing,  it  certainly  means  that  the  gof- 
pel church  {hall  exceed  in  purity  the  Jewiih  church  ;  that 
it  mall,  at  leaft,  be  compofed  of  profeftlng  faints,  IJmo.h 
G 


74  The  Mode  and  Subjects         [Serm.  VI. 

fays,  chip.  liv.  13,  All  thy  children  fhall  he  taught  of  the 
Lord.  The  latter  of  thefe  paffages,  our  Lord  applies  to 
the  gofpel  day,  John  vi.  45 :  The  former  is  applied  to  the 
gofpel  church  by  Paul,  Heb.  viii. 

Mofes  fays  in  Deut.  xviii.  15,  19.  The  Lord  thy  God 
will  raife  up  unto  thee  a  Prophet  from  the  midft  of  thee,  of 
thy  brethren,  like  unto  me  ;  unto  him  ye  fhall  hearken. 
And  it  fhall  come  to  pafs,  that  whofoever  will  not  hearken 
unto  my  words,  which  he  fliall  fpeak  in  my  name,  I  will  re- 
quire it  of  him. 

This,  and  much  more,  Peter  applies  to  gofpel  days,  and 
to  the  gofpel  church,  ylcls  iii.  22,  to  the  end.  Mofes  truly 
faid  unto  the  fathers,  A  Prophet  fliall  the  Lord  your  God 
raife  up  unto  you,  of  your  brethren,  like  unto  me ;  him 
fliall  ye  hear  in  all  things  whatfoever  he  fhall  fa-y  unto  you. 
And  it  fliall  come  to  pafs  that  every  foul  that  will  not  hear 
that  Prophet,  fhall  be  dejlroyed  from  among  the  people.  Yea, 
and  all  the  prophets  from  Samuel,  and  thofe  that  follow 
after,  as  many  as  have  fpoken,  have  likewife  foretold  of 
thefe  days.  Ye  are  the  children  of  the  prophets,  and  of  the 
covenant  which  God  made  with  our  fathers,  faying  unto 
Abraham,  And  in  thy  feed  fliall  all  the  kindreds,  of  the 
earth  be  bleifed.  Unto  you  fiift,  God,  having  raifed  up  his 
Son  Jefus,  lent  him  to  blefs  you  in  turning  away  every  one  of 
you  from  his  iniquities. 

Through  the  New-Te'ftament,  the  gofpel  church,  is,  or  ap- 
pears to  be,  fpoken  cf  as  a  fdciety,  nation  or  church  of 
faints ;  and  :\s  being  greatly  different  from  the  nation  of  the 
Jews.  But  the  fuhjecis  of  baptifm  being  determined  by  the 
iubjects  of  circumcifion  brings  the  goipel  chuich  as  to  its 
conftituent  materials,  to  the  fame  condition  with  the  church 
under  the  law  of  carnal  ordinances.  Indeed,  what  is  now, 
generally,  called  the  gofpel  church  is  hardly  to  be  diftin- 
guifhed  by  its  members  from  the  old  Jewifh  church. 

£)o  not  thefe-  things  look  as  though  the  twelve  hundred 
and  fixty  years  of  Antichrift's  rtign  were  not  wholly  paft  ? 
Is  there  not,  my  brethren,  fome  defiling  error  at  the  root  of 
all  this  i1  Can  fueh  dreams,  as  are  thefe  confequences,  flow 
from  a  pure  fountain  ?  Indeed  many  good  minifters  of  our 
land  have  long  flnce  difcovered  fome  of  thefe  evil  confequen- 
ces, and  have  laboured  hard  to  rectify  them.  Preiident 
Kdwards,  and  many  others,  made  a  noble  (land  againft  this 
flood  of  corruption  ;    yet  they  difcovered  not  the  fountain, 


Serm.  VI.]  of  Baptifm.  j$ 

whence  thefe  ftreams  flow,  and  will  flow,  till  it  be  removed. 
Putting  or  miftaking  the  covenant  of  circumcifion,  for  the 
covenant  which  was  confirmed  of  God  in  Chr'ift  to  Abra- 
ham, twenty-four  years  before  circumcifion  was  known,  and 
iubftituting  baptifm  for  circumcifion,  and  determining  the 
fubjeits  of  the  one  by  the  fubjects  of  the  other,  without  any 
authority  thus  to  do,  have  produoed  all  this  corruption,  de- 
ception, and  world  of  evil.  Would  good  minifters  be  per- 
fuaded  to  lay  the  axe  at  the  root'  of  the  tree,  as  John  did, 
the  evils  would  be  foon  rectified. 

The  fubject,  on  which  we  now  are,  is  of  fuch  high  con- 
cernment to  the  church  of  Chrift,  generally,  and  your  con- 
viction of  the  truth  of  it,  being  almoft,  or  quite,  effenti.d  to 
our  future  peace  and  union  together,  T  would  willingly 
omit  nothing  which  might  chafe  away  your  darknefs,  and 
caufe  the  true  light  to  appear.  I  will,  therefore,  add  here 
the  hifiory  of  infant  baptifm.  Should  we  find  that  infant 
baptifm  is  of  men,  as  we  have  already  found  fprinkling  to 
be»  it  is  hoped  that  you  will  either  give  it  up,  or  pract'ife  it 
as  being  of  man's  device,  and  not,  ;\s  Mr.  Dickinfon  would 
have  it,  as  belonging  to  infants  by  divine  right. 

The  firlt  information  which  we  have  of  infant  baptifm  is 
about  the  middle  of  the  fecond  century  j  about  which  time 
lrenseus,  in  one  of  his  epiftles,  has  the  following  fentence  : 
"  The  church  received  a  tradition  from  the  apoftles  to  ad- 
minifter  baptifm  to  little  children  or  infants.''* 

The  next  account  we  have  of  this  matter  (if  we  except 
Tertullian,  who  oppofed  the  practice)  is  given  us  by  Origen, 
in  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century.  His  words  are, 
"  Little  children  are  baptized  for  the  remtffion  of  fins." 
For  the  remiflion  of  original  fin,  or  polluiion,  for  of  this  is 
he  fpeaking.  Again  he  fays,  "  The  church  had  an  order 
from  the  apoftles  to  give  baptifm  to  infants." 

Another  part  of  the  hiftory  of  infant  baptifm  we  have  in 
a  quotation  from  the  decifions  of  the  famous  council  at  Car- 
thage, in  the  year  253.  It  is  this  :  "  From  baptifm  and  the 
grace  of  God  none  ought  to  be  prohibited ;  efpecially  infants 
need  our  help  and  the  divine  merqy."  We  have  a  farther 
account  from  Auguftine,  who  flnurifhed  about  the  middle 
of  the  fourth  century.  His  vrcrds  (writing  of  infant  bap- 
tifm) arc,   "Let  none,   therefore,  fo   much  as   ivhifper  any 

*  Pref.  Dickinfon  on  Baptifm. 


?6  The  Mode  and  Subjects         [Serm.  VI. 

other  doctrine  in  your  ears  :  this  the  church  hath  always 
had,  has  always  held." 

The  next  we  hear  of  infant  baptifm  is,  that  the  practice 
was  confirmed,  and  fo  put  beyond  difpute,  by  Pope  Inno- 
cent the  Firft. 

Now  fire  and  fword  were  the  all-conclufive  arguments 
ufed  for  the  conviction  and  reformation  of  all  who  refufed 
to  praclife,  or  dared  to  call  in  queftion,  infant  baptifm.  We 
will  pafs  over  the  horrid  perfections,  which  now  began  to 
be,  and  have  ever  fince  been  practifed,  at  intervals,  upon 
thofe  who  would  not  fubmit  to  the  divine  right  of  infants 
to  baptifm,  as  conferred  on  them  by  the  ghoftly  Popes  of 
Rome. 

Luther,  the  famous  German  r&former,  fays,  "  thatanfant 
baptifm  was  not  determined  till  Pope  Innocentius  ;"  and 
Grotius,  in  his  annotations  on  Matth.  x\x.  fays,  "  It  was  not 
enjoined  till  the  Council  of  Carthage."* 

We  ought,  however,  to  trace  the  hiftory  of  infant  baptifm 
one  ftep  farther,  and  notice  Calvin,  and  a  multitude  fince, 
who  were  unwilling  to  acknowledge  their  dependence  on 
the  Mother  of  Harlots,  for  their  authority  in  this  matter  ; 
and  therefore  with  great  ingenuity  have  difcovered  infant 
baptifm,  as  a  gofpel  ordinance,  or  the  right  of  infants  to  it, 
in  the  law  of  Mofes.  Indeed  they  have  fuppofed  that  this 
doctrine  is  implied  in  a  number  of  paffages  of  the  New-Tef- 
tament.  Yet,  I  believe,  none  who  pra&ife  it,  are  willing  to 
venture  this  New-Teftament  ordinance  upon  New-Teftament 
evidence. 

Here  you  fee  that  tradition  is  the  foundation  of  infant  bap- 
tifm ;  error,  the  belief  that  baptifm  ivajhes  away  original  Jin , 
the  nurfe  of  its  tender  age  ;  the  church  of  Rome,  the  con- 
firmer  and  ftrong  defender  of  it ;  and  the  long  fmce  repeal- 
ed, ceremonial  law  of  Mofes  the  evidence  for  it.  You  fee,  the 
introduction  of  infant  baptifm  was  tradition.  Upon  this  foun- 
dation hath  it  manifeftly  refted  ever  fmce.  All  the  ingeni- 
ous arguments  of  learned  and  pious  men,  can,  in  fact,  add 
no  ftrenglh  to  its  firft  foundation.  The  firft  we  hear  of  it 
is,  it  was  placed  upon  tradition,  and  there  it  hath  refted,  or 
been  [landing  uneaiily,  ever  fince. 

Befides,  this  tradition,  as  well  as  the  practice  which  fol- 
lowed, is  doubtlefs  the  offspring  of  error,  and  man's  inven- 

*  Ancient  Dialogue  Revifech 


Serm.  VI.]  of  Baptifm.  77 

tion.  At  bed  we  have  but  one  witnefs  for  it,  in  the  mouth 
of  whom  nothing  can  be  eflabliihed.  Origen  fays,  "  The 
church  had  an  order  from  the  Apoftlec."  Still  we  h  ivebut 
one  witnefs.  Moreover,  the  very  exprefiions  of  the  Pedo- 
baptifts  fliow  that  they  were  from  the  beginning  oppofed  by 
the  Baptifts.  Irenseus  fays,  "We  have  a  tradition/'  Ori- 
gen fays,  "  We  have  an  order."  The  Council  of  Carthage 
fay,  "Infants  ought  not  to  be  prehib'ited  from  baptifm." 
Auguftine  faith,  "  Let  none  fo  much  as  whifper  any  other 
doctrine  in  your  ears." — Does  net  every  fyllable  indicate  the 
difpute  which  the  Baptifts  had  with  the  inventers  and  fup- 
porters  of  this  anti-evangelical  principle  and  practice? 

It  is  worthy  of  a  moment's  consideration,  tha»t  not  one  of 
the  mofi;  ancient  fathers  makes  the  lead  pretention  that  in- 
fant baptifm  is  fupported  by  io  much  as  one  parage  in  ei- 
ther the  Old-Teftament,  or  the  New ;  and  thuy  mention  no 
authority  but  tradition,  and  an  order  from  the  Apoilles,  &c. 
which,  at  belt,  are  very  uncertain  things. 

Whoever  can  fix  their  faith,  continue  their  practice,  and 
venture  their  refponfibility,  on  fuch  a  traditionary  founda- 
tion, I  cannot.  Upon  this  foundation  for  our  practice,  hav* 
both  we  and  our  fathers  ventured  to  oppofe  the  Baptifts, 
with  greater  or  kfs  degrees  of  virulence  ;  whilft,  by  our  tra- 
dition, we  have  greatly  injured  the  ordinance  of  Chrift,  if 
not,  in  this  inftance,  made  void  the  law  of  God. 

In  fine  :  Was  not  infant  baptifm  fir  (I  introduced  to  efcape 
the  offence  of  the  crofs  ?  Is  it  not,  with  many,  unknowingly 
continued  for  the  fame  end  ?  It  bringeth  the  church  to  its 
former  ftate  as  under  the  law.  If  I  yet  preach  clrcwncifion, 
why  do  I  yet  fuffer  perfecuticn4  Then  is  the  offence  of  the 
srofs  ceafed,  Gal.  v.  n. 


G  z 


?i>  The  Mode  and  Subjeds        [Serm.  VII. 


SERMON   VII. 

MATTHEW  xxviii.  19,  20. 

Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghofl  ;  teach- 
ing them  to  obferve  all  things  ivhatfoever  I  have  commanded 
you  :  And,  lo,  I  am  with  you  ahvay?  even  unto  the  end  ef  the 
tvorld.     Amen. 

I  HAVE  already  fet  before  you  the  principal  part  of  what 
I  intended  under  the  two  firft.  propositions  in  my  text. 
What  remains  is  to  bring  forward — 

III.  Chrift's  command  to  ail  his  miniftering  fervants  to 
teach  all  nations,  or  thofe  who  mould  be  difcipled  among 
them,  to  obferve  all  things  whatfoever  he  had  commanded 
them.  And  then — 

Lajlly.  His  comforting  and  (lengthening  promife,  which 
is,  And,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world. 

To  thefe  piopofi:ions,  your  ferious,  Chriftian  attention  is 
requefted.     The  firft  is — 

III.  Chrift's  command  to  the  minifters  of  his  gofpel  to 
teach  all  nations,  or  thofe  who  mould  be  difcipled  among 
them,  to  obferve  all  things  whatfoever  he  had  commanded 
them. 

Here  you  fee  the  extenfivenefs  of  my  orders  received, 
and  which  I  mud  carefully  obferve,  would  I  be  obedient 
unto  the  Heavenly  Teacher,  who  came  from  God. 

Chrift  Jems,  when  perfonally  on  earth,  gave  a  new  edition 
of  his  own  and  his  Father's  mind  and  will.  In  this  new 
edition,  he  abrogated  or  left  out,  many  ceremonies  of  the 
old,  as  being  no  longer  ufeful.  Under  the  old  edition,  the 
church  was  in  its  childhood,  and  therefore  under  fuch  tutors 
and  governors  as  were  not  needed  in  her  riper  years.  In 
this  new  edition,  Chrift  hath  pointed  ouPwhat  is  to  be  pre- 
ferved  of  the  old.  The  fum  of  the  moral  law  and  the 
prophets,  were  to  continue  in  force.  Thefe  are,  indeed,  in 
the  very  nature  of  things,  binding  on  accountable  creatures. 
But  when  Chrift,  the  anointed  and  expecled  Meffiah,  was 
tome,  then  all  thofe  rites,  facrifices  and  typical  inftitutions 


Serm.  VII.]  of  Baptifm.  79 

of  the  ceremonial  law,  which  were,  together,  as  a  fchool- 
mafter  to  lead  the  obferver  to  Chrift,  were  difannulled,  be- 
ing no  longer  of  ufe. 

You  fee  what  minifters  have  authority  to  teach  for  both 
doctrine  and  practice.  It  is  what  Chrift  hath  commanded 
them,  and  nothing  which  is  contrary  from  it. 

In  time  paft  I  have  taught  you  the  precepts  of  Chrift, 
fomewhat  largely.  As  I  have  taught  them,  fo  you  have, 
as  is  believed,  received  them  to  the  faving  of  your  fouls. 
The  ordinance  of  the  fupper  I  have  taught  in  its  fimplicity, 
and  fo  have  you  received  it.  You  have  alfo  been  inform- 
ed, that  Jefus  Chrift  appointed  baptifm,  as  an  ordinance  to 
be  obferved  in  his  church.  But  what  that  ordinance  was, 
and  who  were  the  fubjecls  of  it,  you  have  not  been  particu- 
larly told,  till  of  late.  Nor  had  I,  till  a  fhort  time  fince,  a 
clear  underftanding  of  either.  I,  no  doubt,  ought  to  have 
known  them  before  ;  but  till  I  did,  I  could  not  teach  them 
to  you.  When  I  came  to  the  knowledge  of  them,  it  was 
no  longer  in  my  power  to  be  faithful  to  Chrift,  and  refufe 
to  teach  them.  In  the  fimplicity  of  my  heart  have  I  taught 
you  what  is  baptifm,  and  who  are  to  be  baptized. 

Whether  thefe  things  be,  or  be  not,  agreeable  to  my 
former  notions  of  them,  is  nothing  to  the  point.  One  thing 
I  am  fettled  in,  I  have,  of  late,  taught  them  to  you,  as 
Chrift  hath  commanded  me. 

Not  only  was  it  my  duty  to  teach  you  thefe  things,  but  I 
am  commanded  to  teach  you  to  obferve  them  :  for  then  are 
you  Chrift's  difciples,  when  you  do  all  things  whatfoever  he 
hath  commanded  you. 

To  obferve  thefe  things,  is  like  obedient  children  to  re- 
ceive inftrudlion,  and  then  tofearch  the  fcriptyres,  that  you 
may  know  how  thefe  things  are.  It  belongs  to  me  to  teach 
you — 

1.  To  obferve  thefe  things  till  you  underftand  them. 
And  then — 

2.  To  obferve  them  in  your  practice. 

1.  Would  yea  walk  in  all  the  ftatutes  and  ordinances  of 
the  Lord  blamelefs,  you  muft  obferve  thefe  things  till  you 
underftand  them. 

You  and  I  have  been  unreafonably  prejudiced  againft 
light  and  truth  in  thefe  matters.  If  I  do  not  misjudge,  the 
Lord  hath,  in  anfwer  to  prayer,  afforded  me  the  needed 
light  and  knowledge  upon  the  fubjefl.     It  was  not  in  a 


8o  The  Mode  and  Subjecls       [Serm.  VII. 

day,  nor  in  a  month,  after  my  prejudices  received  a  (hock, 
and  my  mind  partial  conviction,  that  I  obtained  fatisfaction. 
Nor  can  I  expect  that  you  will,  all  of  you,  poifefs  fuch  a 
ready  mind,  as  to  give  up  your  long,  and  almoft  inveterate 
prejudices,  and  receive  the  light  at  once.  It  is  by  little  and 
little,  that  antichriftian  errors  muft  be  deftroyed  from  the 
church,  and  from  your  hearts,  as  well  as  from  mme. 

You  may  expect  to  find  me  readyf  at  any  time,  and  at  all 
tinle?,  to  afford  you  every  inftruction,  arid  to  anfwer  any 
objection  which  may  occur  to  your  candid  minds.  You 
fhould  have  your  Bibles  always  nigh  you,  and  poftefs  con- 
tinually, a  prayerful,  teachable  fpirit.  Ee  determined  to 
hearken  to  none  but  Chrift,  and  to  be  obedient  to  all  his 
commands. 

Be  careful  to  avoid  all  bitternefs  and  evil  fpeaking.  Wif- 
dom  will  not  dwell  with  ftrife  ;  nor  will  the  wrath  of  man 
work  the  righteoufnefs  of  God. 

2.  It  belongs  to  me  to  teach  to  obferve  the  ordinance 
oFbapiifm,  and  the  proper  fubjecTs,  in  your  practice.  You 
muft  under/land  thefe  things  before  you  can  acceptably 
practife  them.  Some  of  you,  no  doubt,  fufheiently  under- 
stand them  to  proceed  to  practice.  But  I  have  not  thought 
it  duty  to  haften  your  practice,  or  to  lead  you  by  example, 
left  the  minds  of  others  fhould  be  injured.  It  is  a  time  to 
weaken  prejudices,  and  not  to  increafe  them.  Wifdom 
dwells  with  prudence.  Many  of  your  minds,  as  well  as 
mine,  are,  with  pleating  expectation,  looking  forward  to  the 
time,  when  we  may,  with  nighly,  or  quite,  all  our  brethren 
with  us,  keep  all  the  ordinances  of  the  golpel,  as  Chrift  hath 
.commanded  us. 

When  you  fhall  underftand  thefe  things,  happy  will  you* 
be  if  you  practife  them  ;  for  all  golpel  obedience  gives 
pleafure  in  the  practice. 

As  Moles  had  much  to  do  in  Egypt,  before  God  faid  un- 
to him,  '  Speak  unto  the  people  that  they  go  forward,'  fo, 
my  brethren,  I  may  have  much  to  do  before  things  fhall 
be  in  readinefs,  and  before  the  Lord  fhall  bid  me  (peak, 
faying  unto  you,  Go  roRirjRD.  But,  if  the  Lord  will,  I 
would  live  to  fee  that  day. 

After  Ifrael  went  forward,  and  were  baptized  unto  Mofes 
in  the  cloud,  and  in  the  fea,  they  had  a  tedious  wildernefs 
to  pafs  ;  lb  it  may  be  with  us.  But,  fhould  we  obferve  the 
pillar  of  cloud  and  of  fire,  we  fhall  come  to  the  promifed 


Serm.  VII.]  of  Baplifm.  81 

land  ;  and  it  may  be,  with  much  fafety  and  fpeed,  fhould 
we  hearken  to  the  good  counfel  of  Jofhua. 

You  know,  my  brethren,  as  it  is  my  duty  to  teach  you  to 
obferve  all  things  whatsoever  Chrift  hath  commanded  me, 
let  it  is  your  duty  to  receive  inftruction,  and  be  obedient. 
Your  obedience  is  not  to  be  rendered  to  me,  but  to  Jefus 
Chrift,  and  to  the  word  of  his  teftimony. 

It  will  doubtlefs  occur  to  your  minds,  Whom  (hall  we 
hear  ?  One  minifter  teaches  us  one  thing,  and  another 
reaches  us  differently.  You  are  to  hear  no  man  any  farther 
than  he  lhall  teach  you  as  the  man  Chrift  Jefus  hath  com- 
manded him.  Minifters  have  no  authority,  any  farther 
than  they  receive  it  from  him.  He  hath  given  them  no 
power  to  teach,  but  what  He  hath  commanded.  When 
they  tranferibe  out  of  the  old  into  the  new  edition  of  God's 
word  and  will,  and  tell  us  that  die  rite  and  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcilion  are  to  explain  to  us  the  obfervance  of  a  New- 
Teftament  ordinance,  we  are  not  obliged  to  believe  them, 
unlefs  they  point  us  to  the  place  where  Chrift  hath  fo  com- 
manded. You  are  to  obey  them  who  have  the  rule  over 
you.  But  even  Paul  was  not  to  be  followed  any  farther 
than  he  followed  Chrift.  So  it  ought  to  be  with  you,  in 
hearkening  to  what  your  teachers  fay.  Minifters  are  but 
men,  and  they  have  proved  themfelves  to  be  fo,  by  chang- 
ing the  ordinance  of  baptifm  into  quite  a  different 
thing,  and  by  adminiftering  their  new  rite  to  fubjects  to 
whom  Jefus  Chrift  never  commanded  it.  It  furely  is  a  fur- 
priiing  thing,  and  not  to  be  accounted  for,  but  from  the 
relics  of  human  depravity,  that  fo  many  good  men  fhould, 
unknowingly,  do  and  teach  things  which  are  quite  afide 
from  what  Chrift  hath  commanded  them. 

It  is  too  late  for  you,  my  hearers,  to  cloak  yourfelves  un- 
der what  great  and  good  men  have  faid  ;  for  the  truth  of 
the  Lord  hath  already  been  told  you.  Had  I  not  come 
and  fpoken  to  you  this  word  of  Chrift,  you  would  not  have 
had  fin ;  but  now  have  you  no  cloak  for  difobedience. 
We  now  come — 

Lajily,  To  confider  Chrill's  comforting  and  ftrengthen- 
ing  promife  to  his  miniftering  fervants  :  which  is,  And,  lo, 
1  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world. 

Chrift  Jefus  hath  been  with  his  minifters  :  and  he  will 
be— 


82  The  Mode  and  Subjefis        [Serm.  VII. 

T.  In  preparing  them  for  their  office.  He  was  perfon- 
ally  with  his  firft  gofpel  heralds,  for  the  fpace  of  three 
years,  or  more  ;  after  this  he  left  them  for  a  fhort  fpace  ;  in 
this  fhort  interval  they  pa/Ted  a  fevere  trial.  He  was  with 
them  again,  at  times,  for  forty  days.  Soon  after  this  he 
fent  his  Spirit  upon  them,  and  filled  them  with  it  to  a  re- 
markable degree.  Then  they  were  prepared  for  their  office. 
They  fpeedily  filled  it  remarkably,  and  the  effect  was  won- 
derful.    Threa  thoufand  were  converted  in  a  day. 

Chrift  is  as  really,  though  not  fo  apparently,  with  all  his 
gofpel  meffengers  in  preparing  them  to  go  forth  into  U:s 
harveft.  Thofe,  who  have  not  Chrift  with  them,  to  pre- 
pare them  for  their  office,  are  but  as  wolves  in  fheep's  cloth- 
ing, when  they  go  forth  into  the  miniftry.  They  preach 
for  Jilthy  lucre,  and  frequently  have  their  reward.  It  is  too 
often  the  cafe,  that  thofe,  whom  Chrift  hath  prepared,  are 
obliged  to  go  into  the  field,  or  make  tents  for  their  fupport, 
whilft  fuch  as  run,  not  being  fent,  fwim  in  luxury. 

2.  Jefus  Chrift  will  be  with  his  minifters  in  bringing  di- 
vine things  to  their  remembrance. 

It  is  the  Lord's  Spirit  which  caufeth  divine  truth  to  occur 
to  the  minds  of  his  fervants.  Truths,  which  have  been  for- 
gotten for  months,  and  it  may  be  for  years,  or  paffages 
which  before  were  underftood,  may  be,  and  not  unfrequent- 
ly  are,  frefh  and  plain  in  the  minds  of  his  fervants,  for  their 
comfort,  or  for  the  comfort  and  inftrucYion  of  others,  or  for 
the  comfort  and  edification  of  both. 

3.  Chrift  will  be  with  his  minifters  in  affording  them 
wifdom,  fortitude  and  faithfulnefs. 

The  entrance  of  his  word  givtth  light.  He  maketh  light 
their  path?,  and  ordereth  all  their  fteps.  He  maketh  their 
feet  like  hinJs'  feet,  and  caufeth  them  to  be  fwifter  than  the 
eagle,  flronger  than  lions,  wife  as  ferpents,  and  harmlefs  as 
doves.  With  what  wifdom  did  Stephen  fpeak  !  With  what 
fcrtitule  did  Peter,  Paul,  and  a  thoufands  ethers,  addrefs 
their  auditories  !  With  what  wifdom  hath  he  made  his  fer- 
vants to  fpeak  !  With  what  fortitude  to  bear,  with  what 
faithfulnefs  to  endure,  for  his  name's  fake  !  How  remarka- 
Liv  hath  it  been  thus,  in  time;  of  perfecution !  And' when 
will  you  find  a  time,  when  they  that  are  born  after  the  flefh 
do  not  perfecute  thofe  who  are  born  after  the  Spirit !  How 
often  is  it  the  cafe,  when  minifters,  like  Paul,  wax  bold,  and 
teftify  that  Jefus  is  the  Chrift,  and   what  are  his  words  and 


Serm.  VII,.]  of'Baptifm.  83 

inftitutions,  that  they  are  perfecuted,  openly  or  more  fe- 
cretly ! 

4.  Chrift  is  and  will  be  with  his  miniftering  fervants, 
whilft  they  are  reprpached  and  fuffering  for  his  flame  and 
truth  fake. 

He  fays  to  them  all,  If  the  world  hate  you,  ye  know  that 
it  hated  me  before  it  hated  you.  When  Chrift's  minifters 
are  reviled  and  fufFer  for  his  fake,  his  truth  and  Spirit  bear 
their  fpirits  up.  He  gives  them  to  believe  and  know,  that 
though  they  weep  now,  they  (hall  foon  rejoice ;  that  their 
light  afflictions,  which  are  but  for  a  moment,  are  preparing 
them  for,  and  working  out  for  them,  a  far  more  exceeding 
and  an  eternal  weight  of  glory. 

5.  Chrift  Jefus  will  be  with  his  faithful  minifters  in  giv- 
ing them  to  fee  their  defire  upon  his  enemies. 

This  appears  to  be  particularly  implied  in  my  text. 
They  are  commanded  to  go  and  difciple  all  nations.  Their 
defire  is  to  fee  difciples  multiplied.  They  go  forth,  Chrift 
goes  forth  with  them.  Many  of  Chrift's  enemies  fubmit  to 
his  yoke,  which  is  eafy,  and  to  his  burden,  which  is  light. 
In  this  are  they  gratified,  and  their  defire  on  them  is  ao» 
compliihed. 

6.  Chrift  is  with  his  minifters  in  explaining  and  defend* 
ing  his  truth. 

How  did  Peter,  Paul  and  others,  in  the  firft  ages  of 
Chriftianity,  explain  and  vindicate  the  truth,  to  the  con- 
founding of  both  jews  and  Gentiles  !  Whenever,  in  ages 
fmce,  he  hath  fpoken  the  word,  great  hath  been  the  compa- 
ny, >or  force,  of  thofe  who  have  published,  explained  and 
defended  it.  Martin  Luther,  John  Calvin,  and  a  number 
more  in  the  reformation,  were  like  flames  of  fire  :  nothing 
could  ftop  them  from  publifliing,  explaining  and  defending 
the  truths  of  the  Saviour,  for  he  was  w'th  them. 

You  will  afk,  How  is  it  that  Chrift  is  with  his  minifters^ 
when  they  contradict  one  the  other,  and  themfelves  too  ? 
Anfwer.  It  is  not  faid,  that  Chrift  is  with  his  minifters  in 
explaining  and  defending  error.  Error  is  human  ;  truth 
is  divine.  When  minifters  undertake  to  fupport  error,  they 
go  without  Chrift's  blefting  and  prefence  in  this  their  la- 
bour. Hence  it  is  that  they  are  fo  contradictory  and  incon- 
fiftent ;  and  are  obliged  to  wreft  the  fcriptures  from  their 
plain  and  eafy  fenfe,  to  fupport  &  beloved  prejudice.  But 
when  they  take  up  for  truth,  plain  fcripture  fupports  them* 


84  The  Mode  and  Subjefts        [Serm.  VII. 

and  they  have  plain  and  pleafant  work,  and  their  fubje<5ts 
fupported  with  eafe,  as  you  have  feen  whilft  attending  to  the 
f&veral  truths  in  my  text. 

Befides,  it  may  be  the  cafe,  that  fome  very  good  men 
may  mix  truth  and  error,  the  commands  of  God  and  their 
own  traditions,  together ;  and,  wlulft  pra&ifing  according- 
ly, they  may  enjoy  a  comfortable  frame  of  mind,  and  hence 
conclude  that  their  beloved  compound  is  all  from  heaven. 
This  may  be  illuftrated  by  the  following  example.  Mr.  S. 
finds  it  to  be  a  truth,  that  his  infant  offspring,  as  well  as 
every  thing  elfe,  fhould  be  devoutly  given  to  God.  He 
hath  received  and  holds  a  tradition  from  the  fathers,  that 
his  infants  fhould  be  baptized.  He  publickly  gives  them  to 
the  Lord,  and  folemnly  promifes  to  inftrucT:  them  in  the  way 
of  truth  and  duty.  He,  at  the  fame  time,  hath  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptifm  adminiflered  to  them,  or  adminifters  it 
himfelf.  During  the  whole  tranfaction  he  poffeffes  much 
comfort  in  his  mind.  His  confequence  is,  the  whole  mat- 
ter is  according  to  truth,  juft  as  God  would  have  it.  Is 
not  this  going  a  little  too  much  by  fenfe,  and  not  quite 
enough  by  fcripture  ?  Does  it  not  contain  a  fpicc  of  enthufi- 
afm  ?  Would  not  die  good  man  have  had  the  fame  mental 
fatisfa&ion,  had  he  poffefied  the  fame  fpirituality,  and  yet 
had  omitted  that  part  which  is  enjoined  by  tradition  only  ? 

Lqftly  :  The  Great  Captain  of  falvation  is  with  his  min- 
iflers,  to  teach,  lead  and  comfort  them,  in  all  their  trials,  in 
all  their  (traits.  Whofoever  will  leave  them,  he  will  not. 
Though  he,  the  Great  High  Pried  of  our  profeflion,  when 
fuffering  for  his  people's  fins,  was  left  alone — all  forfook 
him  ;  yet,  whenever  his  friends  are  afRicled,  he  kindly  calls, 
faying,  Lo,  I  am  with  you.  This  hath  been  the  ftay  of 
good  men  in  all  ages,  in  all  circnmftances.  Thofe  who  have 
wandered  about  in  fheep-fkins  and  goat-fkins,  who  have 
been  afHided,  tormented,  of  whom  the  world  was  not  wor- 
thy, have  found  their  refuge  here.  There  is  nothing  like 
this  to  fupport  the  feeble,  dUtreffed  foul.  "When  godly  min- 
iflers  have  been  obliged  to  leave  their  people,  yes,  and  their 
families,  and  fometimes  their  native  country,  for  the  truth's 
fake,  this  hath  fuuained  them — Chrift  was  with  them.  Pres- 
ident Edwards,  for  a  noble  attempt  at  partial  reformation, 
was  conftrained  to  flee  his  beloved  charge  :  but  Chrift  was* 
no  doubt,  with  him.  Should  I,  for  laying  the  axe  at  the 
root  of  the  tree,  be  obliged  to  leave  you,  though,  for  the 


Serm.  VII.]  of  Baptifm.  85 

prefent,  I  fee  no  particular  reafon  to  apprehend  fuch  an 

event,  yet  I  truft  this  will  be  my  hiding  place Jefus, 

who  will  be  with  me. 

APPLICATION. 

FROM  what  hath  been  laid  in  the  preceding  difc  ourfes 
it  appears — 

1.  That  the  two  fides  of  the  controverfy  between  the 
Baptifts  and  the  Pedobaptifts  ftand  thus. 

Before  I  ftate  the  two  fides  of  the  controverfy,  it  is  but 
reafonable  that  I  define  thofe  whom  it  refpecls.  By  the 
Baptifts,  on  one  fide,  I  mean  the  regular  Calviniftic  Bap- 
tifts.  By  the  Pedobaptifts,  on  the  other,  I  now  intend  the 
Calviniftic  Congregationalifts  among  them.  I  give  this 
definition,  that  1  may  be  clearly  uhderftood. 

You  fee  both  fides  are  Calvinifts,  that  is,  they  are  agreed 
in  what  are  ftyled  the  dochines  of  grace.  They  are  both 
of  the  congregational  order,  as  it  refpects  the  government 
of  the  churches. 

Now  for  the  controverfy,  and  it  is  this :  The  Baptifts 
hold  immerfion  only  to  be  baptifm.  The  Pedobaptifts  hold 
that  fprinkling  may  be  fubftituted  for  immerfion,  and  may 
anfwer  juft  as  well. 

The  Baptifts  hold  that  the  fcriptures  know  nothing  of  a 
Chriftian  ordinance  of  baptifm  for  unbelievers  and  infidels. 
The  Pedobaptifts  hold  that,  if  a  great  man,  who  hath  a 
thcufand  flaves,  fhould  become  a  difciple,  then  all  his  houfe- 
hold  are  to  be  counted  difciples,  and  are  to  be  baptized. 

The  Baptifts  hold  that  the  church  of  the  New-Teftament 
is  compofed  of  vifible  or  profelTed  faints.  The  confident 
Pedobaptifts  hold,  that  this  great  man,  his  thoufand  flaves, 
together  with  his  wife  and  children,  all  belong  to  the  gofpel 
church,  though  he  only  be  a  believer  in  Chrift. 

The  Baptifts  hold  that  none  have  a  right  to  partake  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  but  thofe  who  are  his  friends.  The 
confiftent  Pedobaptifts  hold,  that  all  the  adults  in  this  great 
man's  houfehold,  if  they  be  not  guilty  of  grofs  immorality, 
have  a  right  to  come. 

The  Baptifts  plead  New-Teftament  authority  for  the  de- 
fence of  their  principles  and  practice,  where  they  differ  from 
their  brethren  of  the  Pedobaptifts.  The  Pedobaptifts  in 
fijpport  of  their  fentiments  plead  convenience,  and  the  cov* 

H 


86  The  Male  and  Subjsch        [Serm.  VII. 

enant  and  lite  of  circumcifion,  which  were  decaying,  waxing 
old,  and  ready  to  vanifh  away,  mors  than  17CO  years  ai 
-  The  Baptifts  bring  nigjily  thicekore  tejts  of  fcripture, 
which  are  plainly  and  fully  to  their  point  in  favour  of  un- 
meriion.  The  Pedobaptills  mehti<  n  three  or  four  texts, 
which,  at  mod,  are  hut  very  doubtfully  in  their  favour; 
and,  when  rightly  undefftbod,  appear  fully  againft  them. 

What  advantage,  my  brethren,  have  the  Pedobaptifts  over 
the  Baptifts  ?  And  with  what  crime  or  error,  in  this  mat- 
ter, do  they  ftand  convicted? 

2.  It  appears  that  goipel  minifters  have  no  authority 
to  teach  Chriftians,  that  their  children  and  fervants  ihould 
be  baptized,  becaufe  Abraham's  were  circumcifed. 

Chrift  hath  no  w  here  commanded  them  to  teach  thus. 
Chrift  hath  no  where  commanded  them  to  teach  infant  bap- 
tiirn  at  all,  or  baptifm  upoft  the  faith  of  another  ;  much 
lei's,  that  they  are  to  be  baptized  becaufe  Abraham's  were 
circumcifed. 

3.  It  appears,  that  many  of  the  pious  and  learned  cler- 
gy of  New  England  have  made  fome  noble  and  promifing 
advances  towards  truth  in  this  matter  ;    yet  in  this  they  are 

ifTftent  with  themfelves. 

They  will  receive  none  to  the  communion  but  fuch  as 
proieis  faith  in  our  Lord  Jefus  Chi  ill,  as  well  as  repentance 
for  fin  ;  and  they  will  adminifter  baptifm  to  the  children  of 
no  other.  Here,  in  two  inftarfces,  they  rcfule  to  follow  the' 
law  of  circumcifion.  One,  in  rcfufing  to  admit  to  the  flip- 
per, impenitent,  though  civil,  baptized  perfons  ;  the  other, 
in  not  admitting  to  baptifm  the  children  of  all  thofe  who 
have  been  baptized.  This  is  confident  with  truth  fo  iar  as 
it  goes  ;  but  inconfiuent  with  the  notion  that  the  fflbjetts  of 
baptifm  are  to  be  determined  from  the  fubjects  of  circum- 
cifion. 

Thefe  good  men,  fo  long  as  they  pofiefs  their  prefent  light, 
muR  come  over  to  the  true  Bap  till  ground,  or  fubmit  to  the 
imputation  of  inconfifteiicy.  X  wifh  them  to  come  over. 
For  myielf,  I  expect  to,  though  my  carnal  nature  hates  the 
name  or  a  Baptiu,  as  much  as  theirs  dc  es.  But  my  better 
judgment  tells  me,  that  the  Baptifts  are  on  the  goipel  ground. 

4.  It  is  a  matter  ef  lamentation,  that  pious  and  learned 
minifters  have  not  a  little  more  felf-denial :  then  they  might 
be  confident  with  themfelves  and  with  truth  tco.  Could  I 
be  with  them,  and  afk  them  this  plain  quefticc.  Do  you  n<^ 


Sferm  .VII.]  of  Bi  ip  t  S  y 

rind  a  little  bickwardrfefs  from  iearching  critic  tlly  into  the 
primitive  meaning  and  practice  of,  baptifm  ?  I  fear  fchef 
would  anfwer  with  fome  reluctance. 

To  m^,  I  confefs,  it  appear*  an  hard  cafe,  that  the  Bap* 
tkls  mould  fuffer  fo  much  reproach,  merely  on  account  61 
their  lentiments,  when  many  of  otfr  bell  old  divines  have 
given  them  the'ground,  and  confeiied,  that  their  fentiments-, 
as  to  the  mode,  are  from  heaven,  and  ours  from  conveni- 
ence. Our  oppoiition  to  them,  on  account  of  the  fubjecls, 
appears  hut  little  better,  being  but  poorly  fupported 
fcripture:  they  having  the  plain  word,  and  full  current  o* 
all  the  propliets  from  r.Ioiei  to  MalacM,  io  fkl  as  ilicV  iia' 
fpoken  of  the  gofpel  church,  together  with  the  New-Teda- 
ment,  in  their  favour  ;  whilft  for  us,  in  this  particular,  noth- 
ing better  can  be  alleged  than  the  antiquated  rite  of  circura- 
cifion.  If  the  Baptids  be  right,  why  not  join  them,  and 
iuffer  fmall  inconveniences?  If  wrong,  why  not  prove 
them  (o  ?  It  is  pitiful  that  great  and  good  men  ihouki  be 
dallying  with  inconclufive  arguments,  when  the  time  is  long 
fmee  come,  that  the  highway  of  holinefs  fhould  be  fo  plain, 
that  wayfaring  men,  though  fools,  fhould  not    err  therein. 

y.     We  fee  why  good  men  have  been  fo  divided  among 
tnemteives,  as  to  infant  baptifm. 

The  reafon  is,  they  go  without  Clirift  in  this  matter. 
Ke  is  not  divided. 

Some  baptize  all.  Others  will  baptize  only  the  children 
in  the  houfeholds  of  communicants.  Some  baptize  upon 
the  half-way  covenant.  Some  will  baptize  all  who  are  un- 
derage. Again,  others  will  baptize  all  under  feven.  Oth- 
ers Mill  will  baptize  upon  the  good  promifes  of  godfathers 
and  godmothers.  You  will  obferve  I  ufe  the  word  baptize 
in  a  fenfe  which  I  believe  to  be  improper,  but  I  would  not 
id  you  with  a  word,  when  my  meaning  may  be  under- 
ftood.  But  what  propriety  is  there  in  all  this  inoonhden- 
cy  about  the  fubjeeds  of  baptifm  ?  Does  not  the  matter 
look  as  though  there  were  no  rule  to  go  by,  or  as  though 
none  underaood  what  it  was! 

6.  We  fee  v.vv  pood  men,  when  writing;  or  fpeakhip-  of 
baptifm,  are  left  to  fpeak  untruths. 

It  is  doubtlefs  beeaaib  they  will  follow  their  own  preju- 
dices, and  not  the  truth.  Error  hath  divided  thcrn,  and 
Chi  id  is  not  with  them  in  what  they  fay.  Some  good  men, 
no:  man/,  dare  auert,   in  oppoiition   to   the    Baptilts,   that 


&8  The  Mode  and  Subjects        [Serm.  VII. 

there  is  not  a  word  about  immerfion  for  baptifm,  in  all  the 
Bible.      For  lay  .  thus,  hprefump'ion,   and  for  men 

of  learning  to  make  the  affertipo,  is  almo/l  unpardonable.  For 
they  know,  or  ought  to  know,  that  the  word,  to  baptise, 
is  not  once  mentioned  in  all  the  Bible  but  immerfion  is 
mentioned,  unleis  they  mean  to  play  upon  the  word  ;  and 
then  it  is  a  truth,  when  iaplho  is  mentioned,  immerfion  is» 
if  they  will  give  it  its  plain,  literal  Euglifh.  " 

It  the  Baptists  have  the  plain,  literal  and  unequivocal 
fenfe  of  the  fcripture  in  their  favour,  is  it  not  enough  that 
they  are  defpifed  and  perfecuted  by  the  wicked  of  every 
clafs  and  not  helped  by  any  ;  but  irruft  we  add  to  their  af- 
iiiytion,-l)y  fallehbod  or  equivocation?  O  prejudice,  what 
will  thou  not  do,  even  in  a  faint  ! 

Beftdes,  our  good  brethren,  who  are  fo  warm  againft  the 
Baptids,  and  will  not  allow  them  a  word  for  their  mode,  do 
not  agree  together  to  inform  us  what  the  mode  fliould  be. 
One  tells  us,  it  is  fprinkling,  another  fays,  pouring  is  the 
mode,  a  third  contends  for  wafhing  the  face,  a  fourth  is  for 
putting  water  on  the  back  of  the  neck,  as  the  Swifs  are  faid 
to  do  ;  whilft  others  affirm,  that  all  thefe  are  right.  Now, 
fuppofe  the  Baptiits  are  wrong,  who  fhall  we  fay  are  in  the 

rio-nr.   or     t«   rnpre  r\n     vtrrl-ih   ir>     «■!-.;<.     k»jS«u»&  t       l}r\e>e  r\r\t   oil 

this  look  juft  as  it  would  were  there  an  error  at  the  bot- 
tom ?  Hath  the  Great  Teacher,  who  came  from  God,  left 
matters  thus  at  loofe  ends?  Does  the  Bible  thus  diner, 
whilft  pointing  out  the  mode  ?  No.  Its  language  is  pure 
and  determinate. 

7.  It  appears,  that,  in  infant  fprinkling  for  baptifm,  the 
intent  of  the  inflituiion  is  loft,  and  becomes  no  Chriftian 
ordinance  at  all. 

Both  the  thing  itfelf  and  the  fubjeots  of  it   are  changed. 

It  is  tj  lite   a  different  thing  from    what  the  Inditutor  hath 

Neither  this  mode  nor  thefe  fubje&s  are  known 

.!,  ncr  in   any  paifage  of  the   Bible,   where 

I  is  mentioned.     This  mode  is  of  man's  device,  and 

t  have,  at  bed,  but  a  traditional  right.     For 

to  do  thus,  whiht   th:>y  think   it  confident  with 

sruthj  appears  to  be  a  fin  of  ignorance  ;  but  if  any  do  thus, 

while  they  know  what  the  fcriptures  enjoin,  their  practice 

defer ves  1  h  rder  name. 

8.  It  appears  that  dipping,  immerfion,  or  burying  in 
\h.  name  of  t<  e  Father,  arid  of  the  Sen,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghoftj  is  baptifm. 


Serm,  VII.J  ef  Baptijm  -89 

No  man  of  real  piety  and  lbli.l  learning,  ever  dotibteJ  it. 
.  ea.s,  fprinkling  !rifh  been    doubted   by    many,  d 
continually,  by  a  large  clafs  of  Chriltians,  and  been  proved 
by  none  to  have  been  ever  appointed  as  the   Chriftian  ordi- 
nance of  baptifm. 

9.  We  fee,  that  every  plea  which  hath  been  made,  for 
a  general  or  partial  neglect  of  the  fcripture  mode  of  baptifm, 
is  ah  indirect,  though  unintentional,  charge  of  negligence, 
or  want  of  benevolence,  or  of  foreiight,' in  the  Divine  Infti- 
tu":or.  Let  every  man  of  candour  and  common  ferae  ex- 
amine this  matter.  Did  not  the  Lord,  who  made  our 
northern  climes,  know  how  cold  they  are  ? — Did  he  know 
them  to  be  too  cold  for  his  difciples  who  might  live  in  mem, 
to  be  feparated  from  the  World  by  being  vitibly  buried  and 
railed  again  to  join  ids   kingdom  ?     Why  then  did  he   not 

:n  an  exception  in  our  favour1,  and  not  leave  us  to  fuf- 

ier  this  inconvenience,  or  be  in   perpetual   uncertainty    and 

..aal  difpnte,  to  defend  our,  at  bed:,  but  doubtful  prac- 

Dii  lie  not  perfectly  know  all  th 
.  Cyprian  and  others  would,  in  their  erring 
(lad  to  break  over  the  bounds  of  the  b  ution  ? 

then  did  he  mike  no  p'rewiiion  I  »r  the  e  zxin  me  cafes  ?' 
By  doing  this,  lie  v..  Paved  the  Pedobaptifts  a1  world 

of  anxiety,  contention  and  cenfure.  The  frit  appears  to  be, 
th  it  our  Lord  intended,  that  the  way  of  adntiflxon  into  ids 
kingdom  fhould  be  uniform,  and  that  thoie  who  would  not 
;f timiit  to  it,  fiiould  fuffei'  the  inconvenience  of  darknefs, 
error  and  ilrire. 

10.  From  what  hath  been  faid  in  the  preceding  dif- 
ccmrfes,  is  not  the  following  a  fair  and  undeniable  conclu- 
fion  ?  That  I  and  other  Pedobaptift  miniilers,  fo  far  as  we 
havefpoken  a  word  againft  the  Baptifb,  and  especially  that 
th  ife,  who  have  publickly  warned  their  people  to  avoid  the 
Baptifts  and  flee  from  them,  as  from  a  dividing  and  dan- 
gerous herefy,  have  in  this  matter  acted  the  part  of  the  old 
Scribes,  Pharifees,  hypocrites — who  would  not  go  into  the 
kingdom  of  God  themielves,  and  thole  who  were  entering, 

hindered. 
I  by  no  means  fuopofe  that  all  who  have  done  thus,  are 
hldeed  hypocrites,  lave  in  this  particular.  No  rejthnab'e 
doubt  can  be  entertained,  but  many  of  them  are  learned, 
pious,  and  very  ufefol  men  ;  men,  whom  the  Lord  hath 
greatly  honoured  as  labourers,  in  gathering  in  the  harvetl 
H  3 


<;o    •     The  Mode  and  Subjccls,  kc,     [Serm.  VII. 

of  fouls.  Many  of  thefe  have  been,  in  meafure,  bold,  zeal- 
ous arid  faithful,  like  Peter  J  yet  when  they  diifemble,  or 
teach  and  praitife  contrary  from  the  truth,  qhey  are  to  be 
blamed  ;  yes,  they  are,  in  this  inftance,  worthy  to  be  re- 
buked. 

It  would,  indeed,  be  very  injudicious  in  me  to  contend, 
that  all  which- the  Baptifts  have  faid  and  done  is  judicable. 
i  It  would  be  equally  injudicious  to  juftify  myfelf,  or  my 
brethren,  where  we  have  both  faid  and  done  things  contrary 
from  the  church  and  name  of  Jefus  of  Nazareth.  It  is 
time  for  both  minifters  and  people  to  look  to  this  matter, 
left  the  Lord  fend  leannefs  into  our  fouls. 

ii.  From  a  review  of  the  whole  fubject,  the  following 
inference  appears  natural,  and  at  the  fame  time  worthy  of 
much  confideration.  The  divinely  conftituted  method  by 
winch  any  cf  the  fallen  race  are  to  enter  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  below,  remarkably  fets  to  our  view  the  way  by  which 
we  are  to  commence  perfect  members  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  above.  Our  obedience  to  the  former  is  a  practical 
declaration  of  our  faith  in  the  latter. 

In  joining  Chrift's  kingdom  on  earth,  we  profeffedly  die 
unto  i'm,  go  doyn  Co  the  grave,  are  buried,  and  rile,  as  from 
the  deach  To'join  the  kingdom  of  glory,  we  muft  actually 
experience  what  is  but  ftiadowed  forth  in  baptifm.  We 
r  .a ft  die,  be  buried,  or  return  to  the  duft,  and  rife  from  the 
dead. 

How  exactly  doth  our  entrance   into  the  church  militant 
fhadow  forth  our  hoped  for  entrance  into  the  church  trium- 
phant !   It  alio  appears   that  Chrift  hath  directed,  that  the 
cf  the-  one  ihould  be  profeffedly,  what  the  fubjects  of 
other  fhall  be  actually,  all  faints. 
Kow  beautiful  d^th  the  church  appear,  fo  far  as  fhe  ob- 
ferves  the  commands  of  her  Lord,  as  to  the  members  which 
fhc  admits,  and  the  manner  of  receiving  them  !   She  thus  re- 
fembks  jerufalem,  which  is  above,   which  is  the  mother  of 
us  ?11,  if  we  be  Chriitians.     May  the  Lord  direct  our  hearts 
into  the  love  of  the  truth. 

In  the  conclusion  of  die  whole,  it  becomes  us  to  add,  to 
the  truths  delivered,  what  Chrift  Jefus  added  to  my  text ; 
Amen. 

£hD    or    VEE   SERMONS, 


A  MINIATURE  HISTORY 

OK      THE 

BAPTISTS. 


IT  may  be  pleafmg  to  fome  of  my  readers  to  be  present- 
ed witb  a  brief  account  of  the  Baptifts.  I  (hall  extract 
this  account  from  the  writings  of  thofe  who  were  not  of  the 
Baptift  denomination,   but  rather  prejudiced  againft   them. 

Here  it  may  be  obferved,  that  the  religious  fed,  called 
Baptifts,  have  caufed  the  learned  world  more  perplexity  and 
refearch  to  decypher  their  origin,  than  any  other  fed  of 
Chriftians,  or,  perhaps,  than  all  others.  Yes,  this  refearch 
hath  baffled  all  their  erudition  in  ancient  ftory. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  fix  the  period  when  one  feci  of  this 
denomination  was  firft  called  Petrobrufians,  when  another 
was  known  by  the  name  of  Waterlandians,  when  a  third  was 
denominated  Mennonites,  &c.  But  the  difficulty  is  this,  to 
afcertain  the  time,  place  and  medium,  by  which  Chrift's 
difciples  were  led  to  adopt  the  peculiar  fentiment,  which  is 
now  held  by  thofe  called  Baptifts,  and  which  diftinguifhes 
them  from  all  other  denominations. 

It  may  be  farther  obferved,  that  if  no  one,  however  learn- 
ed and  wife,  be  able  to  trace  this  feci  to  any  beginning  ihort 
of  the  days  of  the  apoftles,  or  of  Chrift,  it  is  poflible  that  it 
then  arofe.  Befides,  if  all  other  religious  denominations 
or  the  Pedobaptifts,  who  include  all  which  are  not  Baptifts, 
can  be  traced  to  a  probable  origin  fhort  of  the  apoftles,  and 
the  Baptifts  cannot  be,  it  affords  ftill  more  probability,  that 
they  might  have  arifen  then. 

I  wilh  my  readers  to  indulge  me  one  queftion,  and  to  give 
me  an  explicit  anfwer.  Are  you  willing  to  have  the  origin 
of  the  Baptifts  fairly  explored,  and  to  open  your  eyes  to  the 
light,  (hould  light  be  afforded  ? 

You  cannot,  my  Chriftian  readers,  unlefs  your  minds  be 
unduly  fwayed  by  prejudice,  do  otherwife  than  fay,  Yes. 
For,  though  you  be  not  very  friendly  to  the  Baptifts,  you 
will  not  deny  them  what  you  grant  to  your  worft  enemy, 


92  A    MINIATURE    HISTORY 

liberty  to  fpeak  the  truth,  and  that  truth  its  weight,  at  Ieaft 
in  meafure. 

It  ought  to  be  particularly  noted,  that  my  objecl  is  not  to 
give  the  hiftory  of  a  name,  but  of  a  principle.  I  fhall  not 
contend  who  were  firft  called  Baptifts,  Anabaptifts,  Men- 
nonites,  or  the  like  ;  but  who  have  held  the  peculiar  fentf- 
ment  which  is  adopted  by  thoie  who  are  called  Baptifts. 
Wherever  we  find  this  principle,  there  wc  find  the  men,  the 
Chriftians,  who,  had  they  lived  in  our  day,  would  he  (hied 
Baptifts.  Nor  is  the  prefent  controversy  this,  Whence  cam* 
that  mode  of  baptifm,  which  is  practiced  by  ail,  who  are 
known  by  the  name  Baptifts  ?  For  this  mode  is  granted, 
generally,  it"  not  univerfaily,  by  all  learned  and  honeft  men, 
to  be  as  ancient  as  John  the  Baptift  and  the  apoftles.  This 
mode  is,  indeed,  not  peculiar  to  the  Baptifts,  for  the  Pedo- 
baptifts,  for  many  centuries,  pnkctrfed  this  mode  ;  and  many 
of  them  do,  to  this  day,  praclife  immerlion. 

The  peculiar  characleriftic  of  the  Baptifts  is  this  :  They 
hold,  that  the  ordinance  of  baptifm  is  to  be  adminiftered  to 
adults,  or  to  vifible  believers  only. 

One  natural  confequence  of  this  principle  is,  when  any 
one  who  was  baptized,  or  iprinklcd,  in  hit  infancy,  comes  ov^r 
to  the  Baptifts'  fentiment,  they  require  him  to  be  baptized. 
Hence  they  are  called  Anabaptifts.  Another  very  natural 
confequence  is,  this  fentiment  conftrains  the  Baptifts  to  op- 
pofe  the  baptifm  of  infants.  Hence  they  are  diftinguiihtd 
by  the  name  of  Antipedobaptifts. 

I  Ihali  add  one  obfervation  more,  and  then  proceed  to  give 
you  a  fuccincl  hiftory  of  the  Baptifts.  The  obfervation  is 
this  :  Whenever  and  wherever  I  find  perfons,  who  hold  the 
peculiar,  characteriftic,  fentiment  of  the  Baptifts,  I  ihall  call 
them  by  that  name.     Their  hiftory  now  follows. 

I.  The  origin  of  the  Baptifts  can  be  found  no  where,  un- 
lefs  it  be  conceded  that  it  was  at  Jordan,  or  Enon. 

Dr.  Moiheim,  in  his  hiftory  of  the  Baptifts,  fays,  "  The 
true  origin  of  that  feci,  which  acquired  the  denomination  of 
the  Anabaptifts  by  their  adminiftering  anew  the  rite  of  bap- 
tifm to  thofe  who  come  over  to  their  communion,  and  de- 
rived that  of  Mennonites  from  the  famous  man  to  whom  they 
owe  the'  greateft  part  of  their  prefent  felicity,  is  bid  in  the 
remote  deptbs  of  antiquity,  and  is  of  confequence  extremely  dif- 
ficult to  be  afcertained." 


OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  93 

Here,  Dr.  Mofheim,  as  learned  an  hiftorian,  thoigh  not 
fo  candid  a  one,  as  the  fcience  of  letters  can  boaft,  beais 
pofitive  teftimony,  that  the  origin  of  the  Baptifts  is  hidden  in 
the  remote  depths  of  antiquity.  Nothing  is  more  evident  than 
this  ;  the  Doctor  either  knew  not  their  origin,  or  was  not 
candid  enough  to  confefs  it.  At  lead,  we  have  this  conclu- 
fion,  that  he  could  find  their  origin  no  where  fhort  of  the 
apoftles. 

II.  A  large  number  of  the  Baptifts  were  fcattered,  op- 
preued,  and  perfecuted,  through  many,  if  not  through  all, 
the  nations  of  Europe,  before  the  dawn  of  the  reformation 
under  Luther  and  Calvin.  When  Luther,  feconded  by 
feveral  princes  of  the  petty  dates  of  Germany,  arofe  in  oppo- 
fifion  to  the  overgrown  usurpations  of  the  church  of  Rome, 
the  Baptifts  alfo  arofe  from  their  hiding  places  They  hoped 
that  what  they  had  been  long  expecting  and  praying  for 
was  now  at  the  door  ;  the  time  in  which  the  fufferings  of 
God's  people  fhould  be  greatly  terminated  :  but  God  had 
not  railed  Luther's  views  of  reformation  to  nigh  the  height 
the  Baptifts  were  expecting.  Their  deteftation  of  the  Mother 
of  flarlots,  owing  to  their  bitter  experience  of  her  cruelties, 
and  the  clear  gofpel  light  with  which  they  had  been  favoured 
above  Luther,  and  their  ardent  defire  to  be  utterly  delivered 
from  her  cruel  oppreffions,  made  them  wifh  to  "carry  the  re- 
formation farther  than  God  had  appointed  Luther  to  accom- 
plifh-  They  were  foon  difappointed  in  Luther,  and  proba- 
bly did  not  duly  appreciate  the  reformation  which  he  was 
inftrumentally  effecting.  It  was  as  might  have  been  expect- 
ed j  the  Lutherans  and  the  Baptifts  fell  out  by  the  way  ; 
and  Calvin,  if  not  Luther,  warmly  oppofed  them.     Sec  Mo- 

Jheim,  Cent.  XVI.  Chap,   ill-  Se8.  3.  Part  2. 

Mofheim,  vol.  IV.  page  427,  fpeaking  ,of  the  Baptifts,- 
fays,  "  This  feet  ftarted  up  all  of  a  fudden,  in  feveral  coun- 
tries, at  the  fame  point  of  time,  and  at  the  very  period  when 
the  firft  contefts  of  the  reformers  with  the  Roman  Pontiffs 
drew  the  attention  of  the  world."  From  this  We  have  one 
plain  and  fair  deduction ;  that  the  Baptifts  were  before  the 
reformation  under  Luther  and  Calvin,  and  therefore  did  not 
take  their  rife  from  the  Enthufiafts  under  Munzerand  Storck, 
or  at  th.it  time  ;  or  at  Manlier. 

III.  The  Huffites,  in  the  fifteenth  century,  the  Wicklif- 
fites,   in   the   fourteenth,    and  the    Petrobrufians,    in    the 


'94  A    MINIATURE    HISTORY 

twelfth,  and  the  Waldenfes,  were  all  Baptirts.*  To  this 
fad  Dr.  Moiheim  bears  the  following  tefliniony.f  "It 
may  be  obierved  that  the  Mennonites  (i.  e.  the  Baptifts  of 
Eait  and  Weft  Friefland,  Holland,  Gelderland,  Brabant, 
Weftphalia  and  other  places  in  the  North  of  Europe)  are 
not  Entirely  m'tflaien,  when  they  boaft  their  defcent  from  the 
Waldenfes,  Fetrobrufians  and  other  ancient  feels,  who  are 
ufually  confidered  as  ivitnejfes  of  the  truth  in  times  of  univer- 
faA  darknefs  and  fuperflition.  Before  the  rife  of  Luther  and 
Calvin,  there  lay  concealed  in  almoji  all  the  countries  of  Eu- 
rope, particularly  in  Bohemia,  Moravia,  Switzerland  and 
Germany,  many  perfons,  who  adhered  tenacioufly  to  the 
following  doctrine,  which  the  Waldenfes,  Wickliffites  and 
had  maintained  ;  fome  in  a  more  difguifed  and 
a  more  open  and  public  manner,  vix.  That  the 
Chrifl,  or  the  vifible  church  he  had  eflablflied  upon 
ran  ajjemlly  of  true  and  real  faults,  and  ought  therefore 
to  be  inacceffityzto  the  wicked  and  unrighteous,  and  alfo  exempt 
from  all  thofe  inmUutions  which  human  prudence  fuggefls  to  oppofe  / 
the  progrefs  of  if^quity,  or  to  correel  and  reform  tranfgr effort. 
This  maxim  is  the  true  fource  of  all  the  peculiarities,  that 
are  to  be  found  in  the  religious  doctrine  and  difcipline  of 
the  Mennontte«.    (**  ^--•-ilf.s  in  the  Nnrt-k  ^  t? >     -  " 

it  is  moft  certain  that  the  greatefl  part  of  thefe  peculiarities 
were  approved  of  by  many  of  thofe  who,  before  the  dawn 
of  the  reformation,  entertamed  the  notion  already  mentioned 
relating  to  the  vifible  church  of  Chriit." 

From  this  teftimony  of  Dr.  Mofheim  we  may  remark — 
i.     That  the  Mennonites  were  Baptifts,  or  Anabaptitb-, 
for  thefe  different  names  he  ufes  to  exprefs  one  and  the  fame 
thing. 

2.  That  the  Petxobrufians  were  Bajrifls  ;  for  the  B  ip- 
tifts  affert,  and  Moiheim  allows  it,  that  they  were  their  pre- 
genitors  in  principle  and  praclice.  Bc'Vdes,  in  hishiftory  of 
the  twelfth  century,  part  II.  chap.  v.  led.  7,  he  exprefsly 
tells  us,  that  one  of  their  tenets  was,  that  no  pi  r fans  <what:l- 
ever  ivere  to  be  baptized  before  they  nverf  come  to  the  fad  tiff  of 
their  reafon. 

3.  That  the  Waldenfes,  Wickliffites  and  Huffites  were 
Baptifls  ;    for,  as   Moiheim  fays,   they  all  held  to  the  great 

*   No!  all,  every  01  c;  hat  all,  generally, 
t  Vol.  IV.  pp.  428,  \uq. 


OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  95 

and  leading  maxim,  which  is  the  true  fource  of  all  the  pe- 
culiarities that  are  to  be  found  in  the  religious  doctrine  and 
difcipline  of  the  Mennonites.  Thefe  feveral  denominations 
of  Chriftians  were  not  known  by  the  ancient,  modern  and 
appropriate  name,  Baptifts.  But  their  doctrine  and  difci- 
pline wre  the  fame  with  our  Baptifts,  and  were  they  now 
living,  they  would  be  thus  called.  In  other  words ;  juft 
to  far  as  they  were  coniiftent  with  their  great  and  leading 
maxim,  and  juft  fo  far  as  the  modern  Baptifts  are  coniiftent 
with  their  great  and  leading  maxim,  juft  fo  far  thefer.ancient 
and  modern  Baptifts  are  alike  the  one  to  the  other. 

4.  That  in  the  fifteenth  century  the  Waldenfes,  Petro- 
bruiians  and  other  ancient  fects  (i.  e.  of  the  Baptifts)  were 
ufually  coniidered  as  having  been  witnefTes  of  the  truth,  in 
the  times  of  darknefs  and  univerfal  fuperftition.  How  dif- 
ferently from  this  would  and  do  many  confider  them  in  our 
day  ! 

5.  That  before  the  rife  of  Luther  and  Calvin,  there  lay 
concealed  in  almoft  all  the  countries  of  Europe,  particular- 
ly in  Bohemia,  Moravia,  Switzerland  and  Germany,  many 
perfons  who  held  the  fame  doctrine  and  difcipline  with  the 
Baptifts  in  our  day,  and  were,  of  necelTary  and  fair  confe- 
quence,  of  the  fame  denomination. 

IV.  We  have  already  traced  the  Baptifts  down  to  the 
twelfth  century.  We  have  alfo  found  that  they  were  fcat- 
tered  over  almoft  all  the  countries  of  Europe,  and  were,  in 
the  dark  ages  of  popery,  the  witneiTes  of  the  tiuth  ;  or 
have  been  ufually  thus  confidered.  Befides,  we  have  found 
that  the  Waldenfes  were,  in  principle  and  practice,  Baptifts  ; 
or  in  other  words,  we  have  found  that  the  Waldenfes  were 
Baptifts.  We  will  now  fee  to  what  origin  we  can  trace  the 
Waldenfes. 

Dr.  M.'.claine,  who  translated  Mofheim's  church  hiftory 
from  the  original  Latin,  gives  us,  v#l.  III.  pages  1 1 S,  119, 
under  note,  G,  the  following  hiftory  of  the  Waldenfes.  His 
words  are,  "We  may  venture  to  affirm  the  contrary  (i.  e. 
from  what  Mofheim  had  juft  faid  of  the  Waldenfes  taking 
their  name  from  Peter  Waldus)  with  Beza  and  other  wri- 
ters of  note;  for  it  feems  evident,  from  the  beft  records, 
that  Vakius  derived  his  name  from  the  true  Valdenfes  of 
Piedmont,  whofe  doctrine  he  adopted,  and  who  were  known 
by  the  name  of  Vaudois  and  Valdenfes,  before  he,  or  his 
immediate  followers,   ejafted.     If  the  Valdenfes,  or  Wal- 


96  A    MINIATURE    HISTORY 

denfes,  had  derived  their  name  from  any  eminent  teacher, 
it  would  probably  have  been  from  Valdo,  who  was  remark- 
able for  the  purity  of  his  doctrine,  in  the  ninth  century,  and 
was  the  cotemporary  and  chief  counfellor  of  Berengarius. 
But  the  truth  is,  that  they  derive  their  name  from  their  val- 
lies  in  Piedmont,  which  in  their  language  are  called  Vaux. 
Hence  Vaudois,  their  true  name  ;  Hence  Peter,  (or,  as 
others  call  him,  John)  of  Lyons,  was  called  in  Latin  Val- 
dur,,  becaufe  he  had  adopted  their  doctrine  ;  and  hence  the 
term  Valdenfes  and  Waldenfes,  ufed  by  thofe  who  write  in 
Englifli,  or  Latin,  in  the  place  of  Vaudois.  The  bloody 
Inquifitor  Reinerus  Sacco,  who  exerted  fuch  a  furious  zeal 
for  the  deftru&on  of  the  Waldenfes,  lived  but  about  eighty 
years  after  Valdus  of  Lyons,  and  muft  therefore  be  fuppoi- 
ed  to  know  whether  or  not  he  was  the  real  founder  of  the 
Valdenfes,  or  Leonifts  ;  and  yet  it  is  remarkable,  that  he 
fpeaks  of  the  Leonifts  as  a  feet  that  had  flourifhed  about 
five  hundred  years  ;  'nay,  mentions  authors  of  note,  who 
make  their  antiquity  remount  to  the  apoftolic  age.  See  the 
account  given  of  Sacco' s  booh  by  the  jfefuit  Gretfer  in  the  Bibli- 
otheca  Patrum.  1  know  not  upon  what  principle  Dr.  Mo- 
fheim  maintains  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  vallies  of  Pied- 
mont are  to  be  carefully  diftinguifhed  from  the  Waldenfes  ; 
and  I  am  perfuaded  that  whoever  will  be  at  the  pains  to 
read  attentively  the  ad,  25th,  26th,  and  27th  chapters  of 
the  firft  book  of  Leger's  Hiftoire  des  Eglifes  Vaudoifes,  will 
find  this  diftinclion  entirely  groundlefs. — When  the  Papifts 
afk  us  where  our  religion  was  before  Luther,  we  generally 
anfwer,  in  the  Bible,  and  we  anfwer  well.  But  to  gratify 
their  tafte  for  tradition,  and  human  authority,  we  may  add 
to  this  anfwer — and  in  the  vallies  of  Piedmont. 

To  the  above  we  may  add,  one  of  the  Popim  writers, 
fpeaking  of  the  Waldenfes,  fays,  "  The  herefy  of  the  lValden* 
Jet  is  the  oldejl  herefy  in  the  ivor/d."* 

It  is  here  worthy  to  be  particularly  noticed — 

1.  That  Reinerus  Sacco  fpeaks  of  the  Waldenfes,  or 
Baptifts,  of  his  day,  as  a  feci  that  had,  at  that  time,  flour- 
ifhed for  about  five  hundred  years  ;  which  brings  the  hiilory 
of  the  Baptifts,  as  a  religious  feet,  down  to  the  fifth  century. 

2.  That  this  fame  Reinerus  Sacco  mentions  authors  of 
note,  who  make  the  antiquity  of  the  Waldenfean  Baptifts 
to  remount  to  the  apoftolic  age. 

*  Prefident  F.dwarck's  Hift.  of  Redemption,  p.  267. 


OF    THE    BAPTISTS  97 

a,  That  the  Baptifts  are  the  moft  ancient  of  all  the  re- 
ligious feels,  who  have  fet  themlelves  to  oppofe  the  ghoftly 
powers  of  the  Romanifts. 

4.  That,  if  there  be  any  body  of  Chriftians,  who  have 
exifted  during  the  reign  of  antichrift,  or  of  the  man  of  fin, 
the  Baptifts  have  been  this  living  church  nf  J_fus  Chrift. 

5.  The  confequence  of  the  whole  is  this :  The  Baptifts 
have  no  origin  fhort  of  the  Apoftlcs-  They  arofe  in  the 
days  of  John  the  Baptift,  and  increafed  largely  in  the  days 
of  our  bleil^d  Saviour,  when  he  fhowed  himfelf  unto  Ifrael, 
and  in  the  days  of  his  Apoftles,  and  have  exifted,  under  the 
fevered  opprciTions,  with  intervals  of  profperity,   ever  fince. 

But  as  to  the  Pedobaptifts,  their  origin  is  at  once  traced 
to  about  the  middle  of  the  fecond  century  ;  when  the  myf- 
tery  of  iniquity  not  only  began  to  work,  but,  by  its  fermen- 
tation, had  produced  this  error  of  fruitful  evils,  namely,  thftt 
baptifrn  was  eiTer.tial  to  falvation  ;  yes,  th.it  it  was  regene- 
ration. Hence  arofe  the  neceffity  of  baptizing  children. 
Now  comes  forward  Irenasus,  and  informs  that  the  church 
had  a  tradition  from  the  Apoftles  to  give  baptifrn  to  infants. 
We  are  told  in  the  Appendix  to  Mofluim's  Church  'Hif- 
tory,  that  one  of  the  remarkable  things  which  took  place  in 
the  fecond  century  was  the  baptizing  of  infants,  it  being 
never  known  before,  as  a  Chriftian  ordinance  for  them. 

What  a  pity  it  is,  that  good  men,  who  have  renounced 
the  error,  which  was.  as  church  hiftory  informs  us,  the  pro- 
genitor of  infant  baptifm,  ihouid  ftill  retain  its  practical  and 
erroneous  offspring,  to  the  prejudice  and  marring  of  the 
church  of  God  !  Not  a  fingle  k&.  of  the  Pedobaptills  can 
find  its  origin  nearer  to  the  Apoftles  than  the  fecond  centu- 
ry. We  hence  conclude,  that  their  origin  was  there,  and 
that  they  then  and  there  arofe  in  the  myftery  which  was 
then  working.  May  the  Father  of  lights  open  the  eyes  of 
my  brethren,  that  they  may  come  out  of  this,  perhaps,  the 
laft  thicket  of  grofs  error  and  darknefs. 

1  will  now  add — 

V.  The  teftimony  which  Prefident  Edwards  bears  in 
favour  of  the  Waldenfes  and  other  faithful  ones,  who  were 
fcattered  through  all  parts  of  Europe  in  the  dark  ages  of 
Popery.     It  is  the  following  : 

"  In  every  age  of  this  dark  time,  there  appeared  particu- 
lar perfons  in  all  parts  of  Chriftendom,  who  bore  a  teftimo- 
ny againft  the  corruptions  and  tyranny  of  the  church  of 
I 


9§  A   MINIATURE    HISTORY 

Rome.  There  is  no  one  age  of  antichrift,  even  in  the  dark- 
eft  time  of  all,  but  ecclefiaftieal  hiftorians  mention  a  great 
many  by  name,  who  manifefted  an  abhorrence  of  the  Pope 
and  his  idolatrous  worihip,  and  plead  for  the  ancient  purity 
of  doctrine  and  worfhip.  God  was  pleafed  to  maintain  an 
uninterrupted  fucceffion  of  witnefles,  through  the  whole  time, 
in  Germany,  France,  Britain,  and  other  countries,  as  hiftori- 
ans demorftiate,  and  mention  them  by  name,  and  give  an 
account  of  the  teftimony  which  they  held.  Many  of  them 
were  private  perfons,  and  many  of  them  minifters,  and 
fome  magiftrates  and  perfons  of  great  diftinftion.  And 
there  were  numbers  in  every  age,  who  were  perfecuted  and 
put  to  death  for  this  teftimony. 

"  Befides  thefe  particular  perfons,  difperfed  here  and  there, 
there  was  a  certain  people,  called  the  Waldenfes,  who  lived 
feparate  from  all  the  reft  of  the  world,  who  kept  themfelves 
pure,  and  conftantly  bore  a  teftimony  againft  the  church  of 
Rome,  through  all  this  dark  time.  The  place  where  they 
dwelt  was  the  Vaudois,  or  the  five  vallies  of  Piedmont,  a 
very  mountainous  country,  between  Italy  and  France.  The 
p.uce  where  they  lived  was  compared  with  thofe  exceeding 
high  mountains,  called  the  Alps,  which  were  almoft  imparti- 
able. The  palfage  over  thefe  mountainous,  defert  coun- 
tries, was  fo  difficult,  that  the  vallies  where  this  people 
dwelt  were  almoft  inacceftible.  There  this  people  lived  for 
many  ages,  as  it  were  alone,  where,  in  a  ftate  of  feparation 
from  all  the  world,  having  very  little  to  do  with  any  other 
people,  they  ferved  God  in  the  ancient  purity  of  his  wor- 
fhip,  and  never  fubmitted  to  the  church  of  Rome.  This 
place,  in  this  defert,  mountainous  country,  probably  was 
the  place,  efpecially  meant  in  the  xii.  chap,  of  Revelation, 
6  verfe,  as  the  place  prepared  of  God  for  the  woman,  that 
they  fhould  feed  her  there  during  the  reign  of  Antichrift. 

"  Some  of  the  Popifh  writers  themfelves  own  that  that 
people  never  fubmitted  to  the  church  of  Rome.  One  of  the 
Popim  writers,  fpeaking  of  the  Waldenfes,  fays,  the  herefy 
of  the  Waldenfes  is  the  oldeft  herefy  in  the  world.  It  is 
fuppofed,  that  this  people  firft  betook  themfelves  to  this  de- 
fert, fecret  place  among  the  mountains  to  hide  themfelves 
from  the  feverity  of  the  heathen  perfecutions,  which  were 
before  Conltantine  the  Great,  and  thus  the  woman  fled  in- 
to the  wildernefs  from  the  face  of  the,  ferpent,  Rev.  xii.  6 ; 
and  i'o  verfe  14,  And  to  the  woman  were  given  two  wings 


OF   THB   BAPTISTS.  99 

of  a  great  eagle,  that  fhe  might  fly  into  the  wildernefs  into 
her  place,  where  fhe  is  nourifhed  for  a  time  and  times  and 
half  a  time  from  the  face  of  the  ferpent.  And  the  people 
being  fettled  there,  their  pofterity  continued  there  from  age 
to  age  afterwards,  and  being  as  it  were  by  natural  walls, 
as  well  as  by  God's  grace,  feparated  from  the  reft  of  the 
world,  never  partook  of  the  overflowing  corruption." 

It  is  hoped  that  the  reader  will  very  carefully  and  can- 
didly compare  what  is  teftified  to  us  by  three  very  learned 
men,  Dr.  Mofheim,  Dr.  Maclaine,  and  Prefident  Edwards. 
The  teftimony  of  the  firft  is,  that  the  Waldenfes  and  irony 
others  who  are  ufually  confidered  as  ivitnejfes  of  the  truth  in 
the  times  of  univerfal darhnefs  and  fuperjlition,  were  effential- 
ly  agreed  with  the  Baptifts  of  modern  date,  as  to  principle 
and  practice,  or  as  to  the  great  maxim,  whence  flow  all  the 
peculiarities  of  that  denomination.  His  teftimony,  in  fhort, 
is  this  ;  the  Huffites,  the  WicklifRtes,  the  Petiobrufians 
and  the  Waldenfes,  with  other  witneffes  of  the  truth,  fcat- 
tered  over  Europe,  in  the  dark  ages  of  Popery,  were  ef- 
fentially  the  fame  with  the.  Baptifts  of  later  times  ;  or  that 
they  all  were  what  we  call  Baptifts. 

Dr.  Maclaine  teftifies  that  the  Waldenfes  flourifhed  as  early 
as  the  fifth  century  ;  yes,  he  informs  us  that  fome  authors  of 
note  carry  their  antiquity  up  to  the  apoftolic  age. 

Prefident  Edwards  informs  us  that  thefe  Waldenfes  were 
the  main  body  of  the  church  in  the  dark  ages,  and  have 
been,  together  with  their  fcattered  brethren,  the  pure  church 
of  Jefus  Chrift,  during  the  reign  of  Antichrift,  and,  of  cer- 
tain confequence,  were  fucceffors  of  the  pure  church,  from 
the  days  of  Chrift  and  his  apoftles. 

The  fair  confequence  of  all  is  this,  that  the  Baptifts  have 
been  the  uninterrupted  church  of  our  Lord  from  the  apof- 
tles' day  to  ours. 

I  may,  indeed,  exclaim,  What  have  I  been  believing, 
what  have  I  been  doing,  with  refpeft  to  the  Baptifts,  all 
my  days  ? 

I  know,  and  I  confefs,  that  the  hiftory  of  the  church  af- 
fures  me,  that  the  denomination  of  Chriftians  to  which  I 
have  belonged,  and  to  which  I  do  ftill  vifibly  belong, 
came  through  the  church  of  Rome,  and  was  broken  off  from 
the  mother  of  harlots,  and  it  is  not  greatly  to  be  wondered 
at,  if  all  her  filth  lhould  not  be  yet  wiped  away.  At  the 
fame  time,  the  fame  hiftory  affures  me,  that  the  Baptifts 


100  A    MINIATURE    HISTORY 

never  have  fubmitted  to  her  fuperftitions  and  filthy  abomi- 
nations. 

I  am  fomcwhat  furprized  at  my  own  long  continued  ig- 
norance, and  at  the  yet  remaining  darknefs  of  my  brethren, 
as  to  this  matter.  But  above  all,  what  lhall  I  fay,  at  the 
hard  oppofition  which  fome  good  men  yet  maintain  againft' 
their  brethren,  the  Baptifts  ?  Surely,  they  might  with  great 
propriety  be  addreifed  in  the  words  of  Gamaliel :  "  Take 
heed  to  yourfelves  what  ye  intend  to  do,  as  touching  theft 
men."  If  ye  will  not  favour  them,  "  refrain  from  them, 
and  let  them  alone ;  for  if  their  counfel  or  work  be 
of  men,  it  will  come  to  nought ;  but  if  it  be  of  God,  ye' 
cannot  overthrow  it ;  left  haply  ye  be  found  even  to  fight 
againft  God.'' 

All  the  power,  craft  and  cruelty  of  the  wicked,  though1 
practifed  for  nighly  one  thoufand  eight  hundred  years,  have 
not  been  able  to  prevail  againft  them.  Surely  the  mif- 
g-uided  zeal  of  pood  men  will  not. 

In  this  fhort  Hiftory  of  the~Baptifts,  we  fee  the  continued 
accomplishment  of  one  of  Chrift's  pronriiTbry  predictions, 
which  is,  Matt.  xvi.  18.  The  gates  of  hell  fhall  not  prevail- 
againft  the  church.  That  denomination  of  Chriftians 
which  are  called  Baptifts,  are  the  only  (mown  fociety  of" 
profeffing  Chriftians,  againft  which  Satan  hath  not  prevail- 
ed, either  in  point  of  doctrine,  or  difcipline,  or  both.  This 
church,  or  old  and  inveterate  herefy,  as  Satan  would  call 
it,  he  acknowledges,  by  the  mouth  of  his  feivants,  the  Ro- 
maliifts,  that  he  could  never  fubdue.  It  is  true,  Satan  hath 
joined  many  of  his  legions  to  it,  as  he  did  many  falfe  breth- 
ren to  the  difciples  in  the  days  of  the  apoftles.  But  he  hath- 
never,  no,  not  for  an  hour,  prevailed  upon  this  ancient  and 
primitive  church  to  give  up  the  doctrines  of  grace,  or  the 
adminiftrations  of  the  ordinances  as  Chrifl:  delivered  them 
to  his  people.  That  which  fhe  firft  received,  fhe  full  holds 
1  .  t,  and  will.  In  all  the  libit  ory  of  the  church,  we  r 
no  other  body  of  profeffing  Chriftians,  after  which  Satan- 
hath  caft  iuch  a  continual  flood  of  waters  $  but  hitherto  the 
earth  hath  helped  the  woman,  and  the  flood  of  periecution 
hath  not  jwevaiAecL  Satan's  future  efforts  will  be  equally 
without  effect. 

My  Fathers  and  Brethren  in  the  m'niftry,  and  my  breth- 
ren among  the  piaftdTed  difciples o£.the  Lord  jeius  Chriftj 
fuier  a.  word  of.  exhortation- . 


OF    THE   BAPTISTS. 

I:  you  will  not  take  up  the  crofs,  and  fo  incrcafe  the 
niimber  of  Chrill's  continually  preferved,  yet  always  fuffer- 
mg,  little  flock,  be  ye  careful  how  ye  fet  yourfelvcs  in  array 
againft  them.  For  more  are  they  who  are  for  them,  than 
are  thofe.  who  are  againft*  them.  With  you  is  an  arm  of 
ftefri,  in  all  your  oppolitions,  but  with  them  is  the  Lord 
their  God  to  help  them,  and  he  will  help  them  ;  and  by 
and  by  he  will  help  them  right  early. 

I  ihall  be  very  pleaiingly  disappointed,  mould  I  not 
be,  by  many  of  you  who  are  rulers  in  lfrael,  fet  at  nought, 
for  coming  over  to  the  help  of  the  Lord  againit  the- 
mighty.  But,  if  I  may  but  know  the  truth,  and  pleafe  the 
Lord,  it  is,  with  me,  but  a  comparatively  fmall  thing  to  be 
judged  of  you,  or  of  man's  judgment.  I  do,  indeed,  wifh 
for  the  continuance  of  your  good  opinion  and  friendship,  but 
I  cannot  poftefs  them  at  the  expenfe  of  truth.  That  I  might 
teftify  unto  you  thefe  things,  1  have  rifked  every  thing  which 
the  world  calls  valuable.  I  am  now  determined,  and 
through  the  grace  of  our  Lord  jefus  Chrift  T  hope  that  to 
the  end  of  my  life  I  (hall  be  determined,  to  venture  every-" 
thing  in  defence  of  the  doctrines  and  ordinances  and  church 
of  the  Son  of  God.  1  befeech  all  of  you,  Who  know  the 
grace  of  our  Lord  Jefus,  that  ye  do  not  as  did  many  of  the 
chief  rulers  in  lfrael.  They  believed  on  Chrift,  but  did  not- 
confefs  him,  becaufe  of  the  Pharifees,  left  they  ihould  be  put 
out  of  the  fynagogue  ;  for  they  loved  the  praiie  of  men, 
more  than  the  praiie  of  God.     John  xii.  42,  43. 

You  have  now  heard   me    and   know  what  I  do.     You- 
will  therefore  now  make  up  your  judgment.     But  I  pray 
you,  remember  one  thing  :  With  what  judgment  ye  judge,, 
ye  lhall  be  judged.' 

/  am,  Reader, 

T'by  Servant,  for  the  Go/pel's J'ah, 

DANIEL    MERRILL.. 


ExtraB from  the  Bapt'ijl  Mijfumary  Magazine^   No.  4. 

Account  of  the  Baptift  Church  lately  conflituted 
at  Sedgwick,  Diftrict  of  Maine. 

THE  Rev.  Daniel  Merrill  graduated  at  Dartmouth 
College,  1789,  was  ordained  over  the  Congregational 
Church  in  Sedgwick,  in  September,  1793.  His  labours 
have  been  very  much  bleffed  among  his  people,  who  have 
experienced  feveral  precious  feafons  of  revival  under  his 
miniftry,  particularly  in  the  years  1798,  and  1801. 

'  Several  circumftances  occurred  to  lead  Mr.  Merrill,  in 
the  courfe  of  the  laft  year,  to  review,  with  more  critical  at- 
tention, the  grounds  on  which  he  had  praclifed  infant  baptifm. 
The  refult  of  his  inquiries  may  be  learned  from  the  pre- 
ceding Sermons  on  baptifm,  and  from  the  following  ac- 
count of  his  baptifm,  &c. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  church  (or  covenanted  brethren) 
Feb.  28,  1805,  they  voted  unanimoufly  to  fend  for  a  council 
of  Baptift  minifters  to  come  and  afllft  them  in  the  following 
particulars,  viz.  ift.  To  adminifter  Chriftian  baptifm  to 
them  ;  2d.  To  conftitute  them  into  a  church  upon  the  prim- 
itive Baptift  platform  ;  3d.  To  fet  over  them  in  the  Lord, 
the  Rev.  Daniel  Merrill,  to  be  their  minifter. 

Agreeably  to  their  requeft,  Meflrs.  Pitman  of  Provi- 
dence, Baldwin  of  Bofton,  and  Williams  of  Beverly,  ac- 
companied by  a  number  of  brethren,  took  paftage  at  Salem, 
at  8  o'clock  on  Thurfday  evening  the  9th  day  of  May,  in- 
ftant,  and  arrived  at  Sedgwick  the  Saturday  following,  at 
one,  P.  M.  Lord's -day,  half  paft  10  o'clock,  Mr.  Pitman 
preached  from  A&s  v.  20.  After  an  intermiffion  of  half 
an  hour,  Mr.  Baldwin  preached  from  1  Cor.  iii.  9.  After 
another  intermiflion  of  a  few  minutes,  Mr.  Williams  ad- 
dreffed  the  people  again  from  Prov.  xxv.  25.  At  6,  Mr. 
Baldwin  preached  again,  from  Sol.  Song,  i.  8. 

Monday,  May  12,  at  2,  P.  M.  the  council  formed,  and 
then  adjourned  until  the  next  day.  At  3,  afTembled  in  the 
meeting-houfe,  and  Mr.  Williams  preached  from  John  xiv. 
21.  After  which  proceeded  to  an  examination  of  the  can- 
didates for  baptifm,  until  the  day  was  fpent. 

Tuefday,  1 3th,  examined  a  number  more  candidates.  At 
half  paft  10,  Mr.  Williams  preached  particularly  on  the  in- 
flitution,  from  Ads  ii.  41.     Immediately  after,  we  repair- 


REASONS 


FOR. 


SEPARATING 


FROM  THE 


EWERJL    SYNOD    OF    ULSTER, 


Y  ALEXANDER&6aRSON,  A  M, 

Ti.btrmcre,  Ireland, 


CO.ND    EDITION. 


. .  — r— 


-L^l-'Ml  ...'  . 


ivjt  ai  cordii 

iii".  io. 

I   [irael,  that  they 
-,  aii(\   let   them  meafure  the 
1    if  ail    that   the)  have  done, 
Jnew  them  fhion  therepj 

-.  i:i  thereof,,  and  all  the 

tn.d   all    the  Iprrns 

ami   write   it  in   their  fight, 

■  form  thereof,  and  all  the  ordinan- 

.  .  k.  xiiii,  io,  i], 


EDINBURGH; 
PP.I.vTIO    BY    J.    RITCHIE. 
1  Aikman.  and  \    JoiiNiTo?7E,  rdir.bur, 
;<..  \Vilm  iMio:<f,  Glal'gow  i  and 
E.  Leslie,  Dundee. 

33c  6. 


PREFACE. 


EVery  Chiiftian  is  a  member  of  two  kingdoms 
perfectly  diitin<fi,  but  perfeclly  compatible  in 
their  interelts.  In  each  of  thefe,  he  has  peculiar 
duties,  in  the  difcharge  of  which  he  is  to  purfue  a 
very  different  conduct.  As  a  fubjecl  of  civil  govern- 
ment, he  is  called  to  umeferved,  unequivocal  obe- 
dience, without  waiting  to  inquire  into  its  nature  and 
quality,  or  even  the  legitimacy  of  the  title  of  thofe  in 
power.  If  he  underftands  his  Bible,  he  knows  that 
s<  the  powers  that  be,  are  ordained  of  God,"  and  that  he 
mull  "  fubmit  to  every  ordinance  of  man,  not  merely 
tor  wrath,  but  alio  for  confeience  fake."  In  Britain  he 
will  fubmit  to  monarchy  ;  in  America  to  a  republic  ;. 
and  in  France  be  will  obey,  without  puzzling  himfelf  in 
determining  whether  Buonaparte  is  a  legal  governor,  or 
a  ufurper.  But  it  is  not  fo  in  the  kingdom  of  Chriff. 
Here  jt  is  his  duty  in  every  thing  to  judge  for  himfelf, 
and  in  no  inilance  to  be  the  difcipie  of  man.  He  is 
commanded  to  examine,  not  blindly  adopt  the  dogmas 
of  his  fpiri; ual  guides.  He  is  r.o  where  required  to 
f>r~>  and  fubmit  to  that  form  of  church  government, 
under  which  he  has  been  educated,  or  to  which  he  nmy 
at  any  time  have  thought  it  his  duty  to  attach  himfelf. 
He  is  enjoined  to  "  prove  all  things,  and  to  hold  fall  only 
that  which  is  true."  He  is  (Thrift's  i'reedman  and 
fliouldnot  fuffer  himfelf  to  become  the  fervant  of  man,  nor 
to  be  lettered  by  human  fyilems. 

Convinced  that  this  is  both  the  duty  and  privilege  of 
every  Chrifrian,  I  have  largely  and  ltiiuitJy  examined 
the  original  nature,  and  prefentjlatv  of  that  church  *  in 

*  1  2ts  obliged  fometimes  in  t  is    pamphlet   to    ufe  the 
rd  church  in  this  common  sccep  ation,   though    cot  fo 
'.  ul'ed  m  any  p?.rt  of  the  New  Teltamest. 


which  I  was  educated,  and  In  which  I  have  for  foma 
yer.rs  a&ed  as  a  minifter.  I  have  examined,  and  am 
convinced,  that  both  in  plan  and  admimjhation,  it  is 
contrary  to  the  word  of  God.  It  muff  appear  to  every 
man  of  candour,  that  I  could  have  no  interefl  in  deciding 
as  I  have  done.  Every  intereft  of  a  worldly  nature 
was  furely  on  the  other  fide.  The  day  I  gave  up  my 
connexion  with  the  general  fynod,  I  gave  up  all  that  the 
world  efteems.  I  facrifice  not  only  my  profpe&s  in  life, 
and  my  refpeclability  in  the  world,  but  every  fettled 
way  of  fupport.  It  is  ufual  for  men  to  defert  a  church 
under  periecution  \  I  have  delerted  one  in  the  tide  of 
her  profperity,  or  as  fome  of  her  friends  fpeak,  in  her 
*'  meridian  glory"  If  people  never  begin  to  think  any 
thing  amils  in  their  religion  till  they  are  perfecuted  for 
it,  or  till  fuperior  honours  and  advantages  are  held  out 
to  view,  they  have  reafon  to  fufpeft.  their  judgments. 
But  when  wealth  and  refpeftability  in  fociety  are  in  tie 
gift  of  the  church,  when  one  of  her  members  fits  in  judg- 
ment upon  her,  (lie  is  likely  to  get  a  fair  trial.  A  man 
is  not  apt,  upon  flight  grounds,  to  reafon  himfelf  out  of 
his  living,  his  friends,  and  his  reputation.  It  will  not 
be  out  of  whim  he  will  exchange  eafe  for  labour,  refpecl 
for  calumny,  prefent  competency  for  the  naked  promife 
of  God.  Notwithstanding  this,  1  am  perfectly  aware 
that  the  worft  motives  and  defigns  will  be  attributed  to 
me.  1  would  indeed  know  little  of  human  nature,  and 
lefs  of  the  Bible,  if  I  did  not  expect  the  reproat! 
the  world.  If  they  have  clled  the  msfter  of  the  houfe 
Beelzebub,  much  more  thofe  of  his  household. — He  him- 
felf experienced  fuch  treatment  from  the  world,  and 
he  knows  how  to  fuccour  his  children  in  like  cncum- 
fiances. 

The  divine  right  of  the  prefbyterian  form  of  church 
government,  it  may  be  exp^cird,  will  now  become  the 
preftnt  truth  among  all  feels  of  prefbyterians  in  this 
country.  Their  inveterate  rage  againlt  each  other,  wiil 
for  a  time  be  fufpended,  that  they  may  unite  agdinft  the 
common  eemy.  Every  puip-t  will  refound  with  the 
cry  of  in  . ovation  ',  m  >ny  ai  affecting  jeprtfentation  will 
be  given  of  the  fufferings  of  our  worthy  forefathers,  in 


erecting  the  venerable  fabrich.  I  would  caution  Clin- 
ic fuller  themfeives  to  be  impofed  on  by  fuch 
ft  declam.itions.  The  appeal  on  both  lule-.  muft 
be  to  the  Scriptures  ;  not  a  Hone  of  the  fabrick  can 
be  lawfully  relied  on  any  other  ground.  If  clafikal 
prefbytery  is  in  the  New  feftameut,  let  its  advocates 
Come  forward,  and  fairly  refute  my  arguments*  I  have 
no  j-ct  but  truth,  and  whatever  may  be  publilhed 
againlt  my  pamphlet,  in  a  Chriftian  and  candid  manner, 
fnall  receive  every  attention.  But  let  them  not  lole 
then  temper,  n^r  fubititute  railing  for  argument.  Nei- 
ther let  them  nioble  round  the  furface  of  the  fubjecl, 
but  let  them  enter  into  the  eflknce  of  the  debate.  It 
any  are  convinced,  let  them  beware  of  Hiding  convic- 
tions. Let  them  not  differ  interefl,  prejudice,  or  the 
fear  of  reproach,  to  deter  tliem  from  obeying  the  leajl 
of  the  commandments  of  Cbrilt.  "  Whoever  (hall  be 
a.hamed  of  me  and  my  words  in  this  finful  and  adulter- 
ous generation,  of  him  alfo  fli a  1 1  the  Son  of  man  be 
alhamed  when  he  cometh  in  the  glory  of  his  Father 
with  the  holy  angels.''  Mark  vi'ii.  0B.— "  Fie  that 
loveth  father  or  mother  more  than  me,  is  not  woithy 
of  me  \  and  he  that  loveth  ion  or  daugl  ter  more  than 
me,  is  not  worthy  of  me.  And  he  that  taketh  not 
his  crofs,  and  followeth  after  me,  is  not  worthy  of 
me.  Ke  that  findeth  his  life  (hall  lofe  it,  and  re  that 
loleth  his  life  for  my  fake,  (hall  find  it,"  Mat.  x.  37.—' 
39* 

Though  I  am  decidedly  convinced  of  the  complete  in- 
dependency of  the  apoltolical  churches,  and  of  the  duty 
of  following  them,  I  would  not  be  underftood  as  pi 
undue  importance  upon  this  point.     Chriftian 
denomination  I  love,  and  I  will  never    1  hope  I 

my  hand,  or  my  countenance  from  any  who,  after  im- 
partitl  investigation,  confcientiouily  differ  from  me.  I 
can  from  my  heart  fay,  "  Grace  be  e  who 

love   our   Lord   Jefus    Chrilt,   in   fi:;cerity    and    t 
Pity  indeed,  while  theie   are    fo    few   friends    <  f 
that  thofe  ihould  h  i-'our  hard  thoughts  of  each   ■  tbcr 
for  confcientious  d  fferences.     But  let  it  not 
ed  from  this,  that  1  ihall  "  know  any  man  accou!; 
b 


the  flclh,"  or  avoid  freely   cenfuring  whatever   I  iudge 
unfounded  in  fciipture,  out  ot  compliment  to  any  ttiend 

who  may  countenance  it.      This  would  be  to  "  waik  as 
men." 

In  endeavouring  to  overthrow  the  fyflem  of  prefby- 
teiiar.iim,  1  have  only  i.iTaulted  the  main  pill  irs  of  the. 
edifice  ;  if  I  have  luccteded,  the  rcof  and  all  the  rub- 
bifti  will  fall  of  courie.  The  voluminous  defences  of 
prefb)iery,  of  former  days,  I  confider  too  il ale  to  'be 
particularly  noticed.  1  wait  till  their  advocates  recog- 
nize them.  But  though  every  pin  of  that  fyltem  could 
be  proved  to  be  divine,  it  would  not  affect  my  opinion 
ot  tie  duty  of  feparating  from  the  fynod.  I  would 
ftand  upon  ground  ltill  tenable  1  do  not  ilirink  from  dif- 
culTion.     Truth  will  finally  prevail. 


CONTENTS. 


*^^^^» 


CHAP.  Pag. 

I.  Reafons  a  priori,  why   it   is   probable  that 
the    Soiptures  contain  a  divine  model  of 

Church  Government, I 

II.  If  there  be  a  Model  of  Church  Govern- 
ment in  the  New  Teftament,  what  is  the 
nature  of  that  form  we  are  warranted  to 
expect  ?  .         .  .  .  t       .       .       9 

III.  On  the  Obligation  of  Apoftolical  Practice,    21 

IV.  Prefbytery  Examined,  .        . .  .  29 
V.  Of  the  Office  of  Lay-Elders,           .          .      39 

VI.  Of  Independency,  ....  50 

VII.  The  Independency  of  the  Apoftolical 
Churches  proved  from  the  Apoftolical 
Injunctions,  and  inferred  from  other  cir- 
cumftances  in  the  Epiftles,  .  .  65 

VIII.  Objections  Anfwered,         .         .  .       •   .72 

IX.   Reafons  why  fome  are  apt  to  conclude,  that 

there  is  no  Church  Model  in  Scripture,       80 
X.  Character  of  Church  Members — or  the  ne- 

ceffity  of  Pure  Communion,        .         .  87 

XL   Objections  Anfwered,  ...  06 

XII.  Additional  Realons  for  Separating  from  the 

General  Synod,  ....       104 

XIII.  Objedionsv Anfwered,         .         .         ,  118 


REASONS,    &c. 


CHAPTER  I. 


REASONS  a  priori  *  why  it  is  probable  that  the 
Scriptures  contain  a  Divine  Model  of  Church 
Government. 

NOTHING  can  be  more  unfair  than  to  determine 
a  priori,  with  an  air  of  demonftrative  certainty, 
what  muft  be  revealed  in  Scripture  ;  and  then  to  open 
the  book  and  compel  it  to  favour  the  hypothefis.  We 
are  not  arrogantly  to  prefcribe  to  God  what  he  muft 
reveal  :  our  conclufions  upon  what  is  proper  to  be  re- 
vealed, muft  be  ultimately  determined  by  a  candid  in- 
fpeftion  of  the  facred  volume  itfelf.  Controvertifts 
upon  the  fubjecl  of  church  government  have  frequently 
abufed  this  argument  ;  and  have,  as  it  were,  almoft  fet- 
tled the  difpute  without  opening  the  Bible.  Their 
favourite  fyftem  muft  be  there,  and  they  are  determin- 
ed to  find  it.  In  proportion  to  the  poverty  of  fcrip- 
ture  materials,  is  there  a  wider  fcope  for  imagination  : 
where  Scripture  fails  them,  high  probability  will  amply 
compenfate  for  the  deficiency,  and  is  even  more  conve- 
nient, as  it  will  vary  according  to  the  neceffities  of  the 
different  writers. 

A 

*  By  a  priori,  T  mean  thofe  arguments  that  render  it  pro- 
bable that  there  is  in  the  New  Teftament  a  Divine  Model 
of  Church  Government,  previous  to  the  inveiiigation  of 
Scripture,  and  I  ufe  it  here  and  elfewhere  to  prevent  a  cir- 
cumlocution. 


But  though  this  argument  has  been  abufcd,  we  are 
not  on  that  account  entirely  to  abandon  it.  I  appre- 
hend that  there  is  a  legitimate  ufe  which  it  may  have 
on  many  queflions,  highly  ferviceable,  if  reftrained  with- 
in its  natural  limits.  Though  we  are  not  warranted 
to  conclude  with  certainty,  that  there  is  a  divine  model 
or*  church  government  in  the  New  Teilament,  till  we 
prove  it  from  itfelf,  yet  there  may  be  reafons  to  render 
the  affirmative  extremely  probable  ;  which,  when  con- 
sidered, will  animate  us  in  our  fearch,  induce  us 
to  collect  the  fcattered  fragments,  and  prepare  us 
to  receive,  with  gratitude,  even  the  fcanty  pattern 
which  fcripture  may  afford.  Suppofe  I  live  near  a  river 
on  which  there  are  many  bleach-greens — after  a  flood  I 
find  a  web — I  am  anxious  to  know  to  whom  it  belongs, 
for  different  perfons  have  loll.  I  inftantly  conclude  that 
it  will  tell  its  owner  itfelf — I  open  it  and  examine 
the  ends  for  the  owner's  name,  but  to  my  gre.it  furprize, 
though  both  are  entire,  I  find  no  name.  I  recur  to  my 
argument  a  priori  -  -I  reafon  thus:  Can  it  be  poflible 
that  a  linen  draper  would  be  fo  carelefs  as  not  to  mark 
his  cloth  ?  This  web  is  entire — therefore  certainly  it 
rauft  have  a  mark,  though  I  cannot  difcern  it.  Encou- 
raged by  this,  1  unfold  the  web,  and  glance  haftily  over 
it  from  end  to  end  ,  but  no  maik  can  I  find.  Sh  ill  I 
give  over  ?  No  ;  the  principle  upon  which  my  expec- 
tation is  founded,  Temains  unfhaken,  therefore  it  rauft 
be  owing  to  my  unfkilfulnefs  that  1  am  unfuc- 
cefsful.  I  am  not  accuilomed  to  the  buiiuefs,  and 
therefore  the  mark  has  eluded  me.  I  begin  again- -- 
I  fearch  more  leifurely,  not  a  thread  of  the  woof 
efcapes  my  rye.  As  I  advance  I  fee  forae  little  itrokes 
marked  thus  (n.  Jl) — this  cannot,  1  fay,  be  the  m.uk; 
However  I  will  keep  it  in  view.  1  proceed  again,  and 
in  a  little  I  find  fome  other  of  the  fame  unintelligible 
fpecks  (hh)  Strange!  what  does  this  mean  I  Thefe 
are  not  lettevs  fay  I,  yet  they  are  not  accidental.  I  ad- 
Vancein  hopesof  fome  clearer diicovetv,  huf  all  I  can  ob- 
tain is  fomething  like  the  red  '  *  ")— The  thought 
occurs  to  me  to  bring  thefe  together,  and  try  what 
will  make  when  joined.     At  lalt,  after  trying  and   tilt- 


o 

ing  them  a  thoufand  ways  I  make  A  H.  Overjoyed,  I 
exclaim,  this  h  Mr  H — 's  my  neighbour's  web.  Juft 
fo  I  reafon,  and  fo  I  acl,  upon  the  fubjeft  under  confe- 
deration. I  fee  an  evident  neceflity  for  fcriptural  di- 
rection on  this,  head.  I  percevs  itrong  antecedent rea- 
fons  to  expeft  that  the  New  Tellament  will  contain  the 
model  of  the-  apoftolical  churches  for  our  direction. 
With  thefe  lentiments  I  open  the  Bible  ;  I  read  and 
read,  collect  and  compare,  and  when  I  get  the  fcatter- 
ed  fragments  to  make  nn  harmonious  whole,  I  am  not 
doubtful  of  its  divine  origin. 

1.  Human  manners  are  much  affected  by  the  differ- 
ence of  civil  government.  The  genius  of  the  confti- 
tution  gives  a  turn  to  general  manners  and  modes  of 
thinking.  Nations  have  their  characleriftic  habits  and 
cuftoms  which  the  philofopher  can  trace  to  this  fource. 
May  not  the  fame  effects  be  expected  from  particular 
forms  of  church  government '?  This  influence  may  not 
be  difcernible  in  a  companion  of  two  individual  Chrift- 
ians,  trained  under  different  forms  of  church  government, 
but  will  be  fenfible  when  feels  are  compared  in  the  bulk. 
The  government  that  is  moft  fpiritual  will  unavoidably 
communicate  a  tin£lure  of  its  fpirit  to  the  mafs  of  its 
fuhjecls.  Now,  if  the  mode  of  the  government  of  the 
church  be  in  the  fmalleft  degree  influential  of  manners, 
I  cannot  conceive  that  Chrift  would  leave  this  to  human 
difcretion. 

2.  The  different  theories  which  have  been  adopted 
on  this  fubjecl,  have  materially  influenced  the  fentiments 
of  their  refpeclive  advocates,  not  only  in  the  explanation 
of  the  paffages  of  fcripture  immediately  concerned,  but 
alfo  of  many  in  which  they  are  not  under  the  influence 
of  a  party  fpirit.  All  fcripture  truths  have  a  mutual 
connexion,  and  it  will  often  inevitably  happen,  that  adopt- 
ing a  wrong  theory  upon  one  point,  will  lead  us  into 
other  miltakes  in  the  interpretation  of  fcripture,  or  hide 
from  us  the  true  key  of  analyfis.  To  thofe  who  have  at- 
tentively fludied  this  controverfy,  it  will  appear  evident 
that  the  elucidation  of  many  places  in  fcripture  is  affect- 


cd  by  it.  Now,  if  a  difference  of  opinion  on  this  ftibject 
affeft  the  explanation  of  other  paffages  in  fcripture,  theie 
is,  befides  its  own  importance,  an  additional  reafon  why 
it  is  worthy  the  interpofition  of  God. 

3.  The  general  fenfe  of  profeffing  Chriftiar.s  in  all 
ages,  argues  the  neceffity  of  fcriptural  direction  on  this 
point.  This  argument  is  ufed  with  fuccefs  in  favour  of 
revelation,  and  I  fee  no  reafon  why  it  fhould  not  have 
all  its  weight  here.  The  great  bulk  of  profeffing  Chiift- 
i«r.s  have  in  all  ages  fuppofed,  that  they  have  found  in 
fcripture,  at  lea!t  the  ground-work  of  their  refpcclive 
plans.  When  was  the  divine  right  giving  up  ?  Not 
till  the  enlightened  advocates  of  worldly  churches  faw 
that  it  could  no  longer  be  pleaded  with  advantage. 
When  they  found  that  the  witnefs  would  not  fpeak  in 
their  favour,  they  endeavoured  to  keep  him  out  of  court 
left  he  fhould  fpeak  againft  them. 

4.  Either  unanimity  on  this  point  is  not  a  duty,  or 
the  fcriptures  muft  afford  us  the  means  of  effecting  it. 
Now,  the  apoflle  frequently  calls  our  attention  to  this 
as  a  duty  in  all  things.  True,  indeed,  perfect  unanimity 
is  not  to  be  expected  j  but  is  this  the  fault  of  a  defective 
revelation,  or  of  our  remaining  corruptions  and  blindnefs  ? 
There  can  be  nothing  a  duty  which  is  not  revealed. 
Our  differences  about  the  fmalleft  matters  in  religion 
are  owing  to  ourfelves,  and  not  to  a  want  of  fcripture 
direction.  Now  I  know  of  no  way  to  effect  unanimity, 
but  by  propofing  felf  evident  truth;,  or  the  authority  of 
God  in  revelation.  That  the  mode  of  church  govern- 
ment does  not  belong  to  the  former,  is  fufncier.tly  evident 
from  experience  ;  it  mull  therefore  belong  to  the  latter. 
But  unanimity  upon  this  point  is  confcquenlially  oi  more 
importance,  than  upon  many  others  of  more  intrinfie 
importance.  Upon  many  other  points,  if  Chriitians  have 
differences  of  opinion,  they  have  it  to  themfelves  5  upon 
this  their  difference  affects  each  other.  Either  I  mult 
fubmit  to  be  ruled  by  the  opinion  of  my  neighbour,  by 
a  church  government  which  I  think  Chrift  did  not  ap- 
point, or  he  mult  do  fo  to  me,  01  we   muft   form  differ* 


5 

ent  feels.  Now  upon  many  other  queftions  perhaps 
more  intrinfically  important,  each  of  us  may  hold  our 
own  opinions,  and  bear  with  each  other  in  the  fame 
church.  I  cannot  think  then  that  God  would  l«ave  us 
without  fcriptural  direction  on  this  matter. 

5.  Will  there  ever  be  a  day  when  all  fe&s  (hall 
coalefce  ?  I  can  fee  no  reafon  to  doubt  of  this.  With- 
out it,  I  csnnot  conceive  that  perfect  harmony,  the  fcrip- 
tures,  with  the  general  confent  of  profefling  Christians, 
give  us  reafon  to  expect.  Discrepancy  on  this  point  is 
too  great  to  be  confident  with  the  increafe  of  knowledge 
of  the  latter  days.  Whether  is  this  to  be  effe&ed  by  a 
new  revelation,  or  by  a  more  plentiful  effufion  of  the  Spi- 
rit upon  Chriftians,  and  a  greater  attention  to  the  revealed 
will oi  God  Is  there  any  other  way  in  which  revelation 
cant  filet  this  union,  but  by  giving  us  a  model,  or  direc- 
tions on  this  point  ?  I  think  it  not  fuppofable,  that  the 
want  of  amodelinfcripture  would  be  a  means  of  unitingall 
Chrilt ians.  For  if  there  is  no  model  or  direction  in  fcrip- 
ture,  unanimity  or  unformity  is  not  a  duty.  This  would 
be  faying,  that  the  opinion  that  union  is  not  a  duty, 
would  effe£t  union.  Never  would  there  be  a  greater 
variety  than  when  this  notion  mould  prevail.  To  effect 
union,  on  this  fuppofition,  it  would  appear  to  me  to  be 
neceffary  to  enlarge  the  powers  of  the  human  mind, 
beyond  what  hath  ever  yet  appeared  in  man.  The  fub- 
limeft  geniufes  on  earth  have  their  differences  of  opinion 
on  every  thing  but  felf-evident  truths.  But  to  effect 
union  in  this  manner  is  derogatory  both  to  revelation 
and  the  office  of  tke  Holy  Spirit. 

6.  There  cannot  be  that  prompt,  cheerful,  and  duti- 
ful obedience  to  church  rulers,  if  the  model  and  laws 
of  the  church  be  not  in  fcripture.  If  church  rulers 
have  a  difcretionary  power  to  ena£t  laws,  they  may  abufe 
that  power,  and  therefore  their  decrees  muft  be  received 
with  examination  and  caution.  Thus  there  may  be 
a  difference  of  opinion  with  regard  to  their  propriety  j. 
and,  at  all  events,  the  conviction  of  the  duty  of  obedi- 
ence will  be  more  flowly   and  circuitoufly  obtained. 

A3 


6 

This  will  gradually  introduce  either  a  fp'uit  of  difobe- 
dience,  or  of  abject  fervility,  famong  church  members. 
They  will  be  led  either  to  flight  the  authority  of  church 
judicatories,  or  receive  their  dictates  with  a  flavifh  fub- 
mifllon.  The  truth  of  this  remark  is  abundantly  evi- 
denced among  thofe  fefts  which  more  or  lefs  claim  the 
right  of  acling  according  to  circumftances  ;  of  enacting 
iaivs  of  expediency  and  difcretion.  The  people  are  ei- 
ther the  flaves  and  dupes  of  their  church  rulers,  receiv- 
ing the  decrees  of  ecclefiaftical  affemblits,  as  the  dic- 
tates of  heaven  j  or  they  make  light  of,  and  defpife  their 
authority.  Complete,  unequivocal,  cheerful,  and  con- 
fcientious  obedience  is  to  be  found  only  among  thofe  who 
dire  not  command  without  opening  their  commiflion, 
and  appealing  to  the  laws  to  which  they  enforce  obedi- 
ence. Here  there  is  no  room  either  for  difobedience  on 
the  one  hand,  or  flavifh  obedience  on  the  other.  Church 
members  fee  clearly  they  are  not  obeying  man  but 
God. 

7.  Either  all  forms  of  church  government  are  alike  cal- 
culated to  promote  edification,  or  if  one  is  better  than 
another,  that  which  is  belt  will  be  fo  evident,  that  all 
Christians  will  readily  agree  in  it,  or  the  fcriptures  mutt 
afford  us  fufficient  means  to  difcover  it  ;  otherwife  they 
are  deficient.  I  know  not  that  there  are  any  who  will 
agree  to  the  firlt,  and  it  appears  from  fa6t  that  the  fecond 
is  not  juft.  In  the  fame  times,  in  the  fame  city,  we  find 
almoft  all  the  varieties  of  church  government  that  have 
exifted  in  times  and  countries  the  molt  remote.  Now, 
if  it  is  a  matter  of  importance  to  adopt  one  form  rather 
than  another,  and  if  the  children  of  the  fame  family  as 
well  as  the  inhabitants  of  the  fame  city,  will  differ  in  their 
opinions  on  this  fubjcct,  it  would  appear  to  be  a  matter 
worthy  of  divine  interference.  If  there  is  no  divine- 
model,  I  cannot  fee  how  God  is  not  to  blame  for  all  the 
variety  of  fedts  occafioned  by  difference  of  fentimer.t  on 
this  fubjedt.  If  we  are  left  to  our  own  judgment  and 
prudence,  there  can  be  no  fin  in  ufing  them}  and  a  vari- 
ety of  fefts  is  the  unavoidable  confequence. 


8.  Whatever  is  left  to  human  difcretion  in  religion, 
is  of  fuch  a  nature,  that  there  is  no  room  for  the  weakeft 
Chriftianto  err,  nor  the  leaft  foundation  to  difpute  j  nor 
would  the  fmalleft  advantage  have  accrued  to  the  church, 
by  having  thofe  things  determined,  which  are  left 
undefined  ;  but  on  the  contrary  fuch  a  determination 
would  have  been  attended  with  inconveniencies.  Such, 
for  inftance,  are  the  times  of  meeting  for  public  worfhip 
on  the  Lord's  day,  the  order  of  the  fervices,  &c.  Who 
ever  complained  that  thefe  things  were  not  confined  ? 
Would  it  have  been  of  any  advantage  to  Chriftians,  that 
Chrift  had  appointed  certain  ftated  hours  for  public  wor- 
fhip ?  Nay,  would  not  this  have  been  attended  with  many 
inconveniencies  ?  But  it  is  quite  otherwife  with  the  point 
in  queftion.  The  determination  of  this  would  have 
been  attended  with  no  inconveniencies,  but  with  many 
and  important  advantages.  The  leaving  of  it  unde- 
termined would  give  unavoidable  cccafion  to  diffention 
and  fchifm. 

9.  Civil  government  and  legislation  require  the  high- 
eft  exertion  of  human  genius,  and  the  greater!  men  who 
have  written  on  the  fubje£t,  are  by  no  means  agreed 
even  in  theory,  what  is  the  form  belt  calculated  to  pro- 
mote the  happinefs  of  mankind.  In  what  refpeft  is 
church  government  a  lefs  important  or  difficult  matter 
than  civil  government  ?  nay,  I  conceive  the  former  to 
be  the  more  difficult,  by  how  much  the  government  of 
the  mind  is  more  difficult  than  that  of  the  body,  and  the 
more  important  as  fpiritual  is  greater  than  temporal  hap- 
pinefs. Is  it  then  fuppofable  that  Jefus  would  leave  a 
matter  of  fuch  importance  to  the  difcretion  of  man  ?  Be- 
fides,  Chrift's  difciples,  upon  whom  this  duty  would  de- 
volve, are  the  unfitteft  imaginable  for  fuch  a  bufinefs. 
They  are  generally  "  the  weak  things  of  this  world." 
True  indeed,  they  all  have  fpiritual  wifdom,  for  "  they 
are  all  taught  of  God  5"  but  this  requires  political  rather 
than  fpiritual  wifdom.  It  is  evident  that  every  human 
form  of  church  polity  is.  and  muft  be,  on  the  model  of 
the  mod  approved  civil  polities.  A  Chriilian  then  to 
be  calculated  for  a  legislator  in  the  church  mult  have 


8 

the  qualifications  of  a  civil  legislator.  But  the  great 
body  of  Chriltians  are  deftitute  of  thefe  prerequifites. 
They  mutt  then  either  yield  to  be  led  implicitly  by  the 
few  learned  and  enlightened  men  among  them,  or  be  li- 
able to  the  greateft  miftakes. 

io.  I  fuppofe  there  is  not  another  queftion  in  religion 
about  which  fo  much  human  blood  has  been  Qied,  or  on 
account  of  which  the  earth  has  been  filled  with  lb  much 
confufion,  as  this  very  queftion.  Does  not  this  argue 
the  neceftity  of  a  divine  model,  that  God  may  be  vindi- 
cated, and  the  blame  be  wholly  attachable  to  man  ? 

T  I.  If  no  divine  model  had  been  given,  it  would  have 
been  impoflible  to  prevent  ambitious  men  from  impos- 
ing on  the  fimplicity  of  the  multitude,  and  promoting 
fchemes  for  their  own  aggrandizement,  under  the  fpeci- 
cus  cover  of  zeal  for  religion.  Such  men  as  Diotrephes 
would  always  aflame  the  pre  eminence.  Antichrift 
would  on  this  fuppoiuion  have  iome  apology.  Nay,  in 
fuch  a  cafe  fome  fort  of  Antichrift  is  unavoidable  3  and 
it  is  not  very  material  whether  he  be  one  man,  or  fe- 
ver?! hundreds.  I  do  think,  then,  that  to  leave  the 
Chriltians  of  the  firft  ages  without  excufa — that  men 
may  be  clearly  chargeable  with  the  guilt  of  rearing  and 
nuituring  that  monfter,  it  was  neccffary  that  a  divine 
model  fhould  have  been  given,  from  which  the  frnalleft 
deviation  was  Snful. 


CHAPTER  II. 

If  there.be  a  mode  of  Church  Government  in  the 
New  I'eflament,  what  is  the  Nature  of  that  Form 
we  are  warranted  to  expetl  ? 

i.  That  form  of  church  government  which  is  prac- 
ticable in  all  countries,  ages  and  circumftances,  is  likelier 
to  be  the  Scripture  model  than  one  which  is  not.  Now 
there  is  no  country,  age  or  circumftance,  in  which  the 
independent  plan  is  not  practicable  ;  but  to  make  either 
prefbytery  or  prelacy  practicable,  there  muft  be  a  num- 
ber of  congregations  formed  in  a  particular  dillricl.  If 
there  were  but  a  fingle  congregation  in  a  kingdom,  the 
independent  government  would  not  be  affected  ;  if  eve- 
ry individual  of  a  nation  were  a  Chriftian,  it  is  equally 
adequate.  In  the  former  fituation  prefbytery  could  not 
exift  ;  in  the  latter,  if  there  were  a  fufficient  number 
of  pallors  for  every  congregation,  a  general  affembly 
would  be  altogether  unwieldy.  Independency  is  not 
fitter  for  one  country  than  another  j  prefbytery  and 
prelacy  are  each  peculiarly  fuited  to  one  form  of  civil 
government  rather  than  any  other.  The  former  was 
fuited  to  the  Republic  of  Geneva,  the  latter  to  the  Ro- 
man Monarchy.  Independency  meddles  not  with 
the  ftate,  but  in  things  civil,  confcientioufly  obeys 
'•  the  powers  that  be,"  whatever  be  their  form  or 
quality. 

2.  That  form  of  church  government  that  is  capable 
of  the  leaft  abufe,  is  the  likelieft  to  be  divine.  Now 
unqueftionably  this  is  independency.  If  a  particular 
church  on  this  plan  degenerates,  becomes  erroneous,  or 
indifferent,  it  has  no  power  to  injure  others,  or  draw 
them  into  its  errors.  If  all  the  independent  churches 
of  a  nation  were   to   degenerate   except   one,  that  one 


10 

cannot  be  compelled  or  overawed  into  their  errors. 
But  it  is  quite  contrary  with  preibytery.  When  one 
congregation  becomes  dead  or  erroneous,  it  has  an  in- 
fluence on  all  the  reft  :  and  when  fuch  become  the 
more  numerous,  they  have  power  to  corrupt  thofe 
that  are  more  pure.  On  the  other  hand,  in  a  pe- 
riod of  general  lukewarmnefs  or  apolla'cy,  if  any 
particular  independent  church  be  irapreffed  with  the 
duty  of  reformation,  there  is  nothing  in  their  connec- 
tion with  other  churches  to  clog  or  prevent  them  ;  but 
a  congregation  in  fuch  a  fituaticn  among  prtfbytevians 
would  find  the  whole  weight  of  the  connection  hanging 
upon  them,  and  that  it  would  be  abfolutely  impoffible 
for  them  to  fucceed,  without  bringing  the  majority  of 
the  whole  body  to  their  mind,  or  by  feparation.  1 
know  indeed  it  is  faid  that  preibytery  is  better  calculat- 
ed to  prevent  error  from  creeping  into  congregations,  by 
the  power  the  majority  claims  over  the  minority.  But 
how  fhould  one  man  or  one  congregation  keep  another 
from  error  >  By  compulfion  or  perfuafion  ?  I  apprehend 
there  is  no  lawful  means  for  one  church  to  keep  another 
from  error,  but  by  remonftrance  and  exhortation.  Nay, 
there  is  no  other  method  can  be  fuccefsful  :  if  this  fails, 
pains,  penalties,  imprisonments,  confifcations,  and  death 
would  be  ufelefs.  Force  may  make  hypocrites,  but  will 
never  make  a  Chriftian.  A  law  of  fynod  may  prevent 
a  miniller  from  preaching  error,  as  to  the  five  points, 
but  can  it  enable  him  to  preach  "  the  truth  as  it  is  in 
Jefus  ?"  Will  it  enable  "  the  blind  to  lead  the  blind, 
without  both  falling  into  the  ditch  in  Where  is  the 
great  difference  between  poiloning  the  fheep,  and  ftarv- 
ing  them  ?  But  let  the  hiilory  of  fynods  vouch  their 
utility  and  efficacy  in  retraining  error,  and  prefcrving 
vital  religion.  They  may,  for  a  time,  preierve  ortho- 
doxy in  the  letter,  but  midnight  darknefs  may  reign 
with  an  orthodox  creed.  "  1  he  natural  man  cannot 
know  the  things  of  the  Spirit,  becaufe  they  are  Spiri- 
tually difcerned."  Vital  religion  feems  in  a  great  ruea- 
fure  extinguished,  even  among  thofe  feels  who  make  the 
higheft  pietenfions  to  orthodoxy.  A  violent  wrathful 
Ipirit  of  party,  and  an  ardent  zeal  for  human  forms  and  hu« 


11 

man  creeds,  feem  pretty  generally  fubftituted  for  fpiri- 
tuality,  and  catholic  Chriilian  love.  Now  all  the  means, 
of  remonftrance,  perluaiion,  exhortation,  and  en- 
treaty are  equally  open  to  independent  churches,  to 
preferve  each  other  from  backfliding  and  error.  An 
independent  church  may  reform  other  churches,  but  can 
receive  no  injuiy  from  them  :  a  prelbyterian  congrega- 
tion may  be  injured  by  its  connexion,  if  they  are  cor- 
rupt, butVannot  leform  them  in  any  other  way  than 
what  is  praclicable  by  an  independent  church.  I  con- 
clude then,  that  as  indeperdency  hath  all  the  advan- 
tages without  any  of  the  diladvantages  of  prefbytery, 
as  to  their  influence  of  connexion,  it  is  more  likely  to 
be  the  fcripture  plan. 

3.  It  is  a  maxim  in  philofophy  as  well  as  in  divinity, 
that  God  does  nothing  in  vain.  According  to  this,  if 
all  the  ends  of  government  can  be  obtained  in  an  inde- 
pendent church,  all  foreign  interference  being  ufelefs, 
cannot  be  appointed  of  God.  That  a  church  under  this 
form  of  government  can  fubfift  in  vigour,  is  evident  from 
experience  j  and  that  it  is  capable  of  exerting  all  necef- 
iary  influence  in  preferving  others  from  backfliding,  we 
have  alfo  feen.  What  poflrble  advantage  can  be  gain- 
ed by  a  numerous  fubordination  of  courts  ?  If  a  light 
licit  of  fur  be  fufficient  to  prelerve  my  head  from  the 
weather,  why  w ill  I  cover  it  with  a  mill- Hone  ? 

4.  That  form  of  church  government  which  cannot 
preferve  purity  of  doclrine  without  human  expedients, 
is  not  fo  likely  to  be  the  Scripture  model,  as  that  which 
can  attain  and  preferve  the  higheit  pofllble  degree  of 
vital  religion,  as  well  as  purity  of  doclrine,  without  ad- 
mitting, in  any  inttance.  the  devices  of  the  wifdom  of 
man.  Now  it  is  generally  acknowledged  by  prefbyte- 
rians  themfelve<;,  that  it  is  in:p<;flible  to  prelerve  uni- 
formity of  opinion  among  them,  without  a  formula  or 
confeffion  of  faith  to  be  publicly  regognized  by  their 
members.  Now,  it  mull  be  evident  to  every  unpreju- 
ciccd  perfen,  that  there  is  no  formula  in  the  Scriptures. 
That  eonftitution,  then,  that  requires  one  to  maintain  pu- 


12 

rity,  is  not  likely  to  be  of  God.  The  fame  may  be 
argued  from  the  neceflity  they  are  under,  to  decide 
by  majorities,  inftead  of  uniformity  •,  dcbarances, 
invitations,  tokens  of  admiflion  to  the  Lord's  table, 
&c. 

5.  That  form  of  church  government  that  leads  us  moil 
to  the  fcriptures,  and  requires  in  church-members  the 
greateft  acquaintance  with  them,  is  the  moft  likely  to 
be  that  of  the  New  Teftament.  Now,  without  an  in- 
timate acquaintance  with  the  Bible,  independents  cannot 
advance  a  ftep  in  church  affairs.  I  might  Jfpeak  from 
what  I  have  witneffed  of  the  knowledge  of  the  fcrip- 
tures among  independents.  I  fpeak  only  of  its  neceflity, 
arifing  from  the  conftitution  of  their  churches.  With 
them  it  is  absolutely  neceffary  not  only  in  church  rulers, 
but  private  members.  The  Bible  is  their  code  of  laws  ; 
they  have  no  other  confeflion  or  book  of  difcipline. 
They  can  do  nothing  without  it  ;  it  muft  be  continually 
in  their  hand.  The  rulers  rule  only  by  the  word  of 
God. — But  a  man  may  be  a  prefbyterian  a-11  his  life, 
either  pallor  or  private   member,   with   a  very   {lender 

'acquaintance  with  the  Bible.  The  knowledge  of  forms 
and  of  ancient  ufages,  of  ecclefiaftical  canons,  and  books 
of  difcipline,  are  the  chief  qualifications  that  are  nectf- 
iary  for  a  prefbyterian  judicatory. 

6.  That  form  of  church  government  that  needs  moft 
the  prefence  of  God  and  prayer,  is  the  moft  likely  to  be 
the  Divine  model. —  Now  the  independent  is  the  only 
plan  in  which  there  is,  ftricYly  fpeaking,  room  for  the 
manifej}  interpofition  of  God.  There  are  inftances  in 
which  prayer  is  their  only  refource.  Their  doing  all 
things  by  unanimity,  creates  a  peculiar  neceflity  for  pray- 
er. If  there  be  but  one  member  of  a  different  mind 
from  the  reft,  it  is  the  fame  as  if  there  were  the  one 
half.  In  fuch  a  fituation,  the  promifed  prefence  of  Je- 
fus  is  their  only  refuge  j  prayer  is  their  only  remedy  j 
and  when  the  difficulty  is  thus  removed,  which  perhaps 
will  fcarcely  ever  fail,  if  explanation,  remonftrance,  and 
intreaty  be  affectionately  applied,  all  the  praife   will  be 


13 

feen  to  belong  to  God. — On  the  other  hand,  a  prefby. 
terian  court  can  proceed  as  independent  of  God  as  a 
court  of  civil  juftice.  True,  indeed,  it  is  ufual  to  afk 
him  to  prelide  •,  but  can  they  not  proceed  fmoothly 
enough  without  him  ?  Is  there  ever  a  Situation  in  which 
they  are  not  as  competent  to  do  bufinefs,  and  fettle  the 
mod  critical  affair,  as  the  parliament  of  England?  I  cannot 
think,  then,  that  an  inltitution  is  of  God's  appointment, 
which  does  not  need  God's  prefence. 

7.  That  form  of  church  government  which  is  mod 
favourable  to  liberty  of  confcience,  in  which  the  indi- 
vidual experiences  the  leaft  undue  influence  in  deter- 
mining his- principles  and  conduct  in  religious  matters,  is 
the  moft  likely  to  be  the  fcripture  model. — The  fcrip- 
tures  are  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  every 
man  is  bound  to  judge  of  them,  and  determine  their  mean- 
ing for  hi.-nfelf.  He  may  ufe  < e I p s  to  understand  them  j 
but  if  he  understands  rhem  differently  from  others,  he  is 
bouua  to  a£t  upon  his  own  belief,  rather  than  that  of 
another.  Now  this  liberty  can  be  completely  enjoyed 
as  a  righ'  in  no  other  than  an  independent  church. 
True,  indeed,  in  fome  prefbyterian  connexions,  indivi* 
duals  mayenjoy  all  the  liberty  they  defire  ;  but  does  tiis 
flow  frum  the  nature  of  the  constitution  of  claffic  il  pref- 
bytery,  ov  from  the  indulgence,  or  indifference  of  thofe 
connected  with  them  ?  The  very  leading  idea  in  pref- 
by tery,  that  for  which  it  is  moft  prized  by  its  greateft 
admirers,  is  this  very  power  of  reftraining  principle  and 
conduit  in  matters  of  religion,  if  prefbytery  is  robbid 
of  this  power,  what  end  does  it  ferve  '  Ir  i<  then  nothing 
more  than  a  feleftion  of  members  from  different  congre- 
gations met  for  counfel  and  advice.  But  where  is  the 
prefbytrry  that  a£ts  folely  upon  this  principle  ?  V  there 
be  any,  they  are,  as  to  conftitution,  a  fort  of  independents. 
There  are  indeed  prefbyterian  connexions  in  which  indi- 
viduals may  be  Socinians  or  Caivittifts,  but  this  is  the  re- 
fult  of  connivance  in  the  general  body,  and  not  the  ge- 
nuine frui:  of  pr..-fbvfery.  Whenever  the  body  choofes 
to  claim  its  right,  a  majority  may  compel  an  individual 
to  embrace  every  fhibboleth  of  their  creed,  and  direft 
B 


14 

and  cjrcumfcribe  his  labours  as  they  plcafe.  But  view 
genuine  preiby  Try  ;-.mong  the  ftiiclrr  feels  rnd  it  will 
clearly  appeal  that  in  all  things  dure  mufl  be  a  com- 
plete uniformity.  Forbearance  is  not  known.  1  do  not 
fay  that  we  are  bound  to  hold  religion  intercourfe  with 
any  individual,  or  body  of  men,  that  we  judge  deHitute 
of  the  truto.  But  as  long  as  we  can  look  upon  a  m^.n 
as  a  brother  born  again  and  walking  in  the  command- 
ments of  God.  we  are  bound  to  exercife  forbear,  nee  to- 
wards \\m  in  other  matters  of  comparatively  lefs  impor- 
tance. But  if  there  are  fome  preib  terian  connexions 
liberal  as  to  principle,  are  they  equally  fo  as  to  religious 
conduct ;  Can  any  of  their  members  enjoy  the  pi  ivilege 
of  idling  for  htmfelf,  as  well  as  of  thinking  ?  Is  he  not 
amenable  to  their  b-ir,  if  he  tranfgrefs  any  laws  of  theirs, 
rlthough  he  judge  them  contrary  to  the  laws  ot  Chrift  ? 
1  conclude,  then,  that  although  fiom  connivance,  there 
may  be  more  liberty  of  conlcience  in  fome  prefbyterian 
connexions  than  others,  yet  as  a  power  of  companion  is 
inherent  in  the  very  nature  of  prtibytery,  it  is  not  likely 
£o  be  the  fcripture  model. 

*  8.  Nothing  is  more  univerfal'y  felt  in  the  human 
heart  than  ambition.  Nothing  our  Lord  found  more 
difficult  to  reprefs  in  his  immediate  followers.  That 
form  of  church  government,  then,  which  affords  the  few- 
eft  incitements  to  ambition,  is  likely  to  be  the  model 
which  he  would  pitch  upon.  Here  alio,  the  indepen- 
dent will  ftand  foremoft.  It  is  not  capable  of  an  adult- 
erous alliance  with  the  world.  Its  Qpiiitual  nature  has 
no  charms  to  tempt  the  meretricious  embraces  of  world- 
ly men.  Though  prefbytery  is  not  the  molt  exaepwon. 
able  in  this  vietv,  yet  it  is  not  without  objections.  It 
has  been  courted  by,  and  wedded  to  the  world,  and  a 
hideous  progeny  has  iflued  from  the  connexion,  it  has 
fought  for,  and  in  its  turn  obtained  temporal  power  and 
riches  j  and  whillt  it  held  the  fword,  it  was  more  like  to 
IMahomet  of  Mecc?,  than  Jefus  of  N  zateth,  II  e  for- 
enfic  nature  of  their  courts,  -jllo,  is  loo  much  calculated 
to  fofter  pride,  by  inducing  men  to  afpire  to  be  the  le;.d- 


ers  of  patties,  and  make  a  figure  in  affembiies,  collected 
from  tveiy  paft  of  a  province  or  kingdom. 

9  If  there  he  any  particular  model  of  church  govern- 
men:  in  tne  New  ledament.  1  is  probable  that  the  en- 
lij.lreneci  advocates  of  it  will  reit  the  caufe  on  the  fame 
foundation,  however  various  may  be  their  arguments. 
For  if  feveral  intelligent  men  embrace  the  fame  model, 
and  have  the  fame  means  of  information,  they  have  every 
inducement  to  unarrin  |ty,  and  if  uninterefted,  ot  unpreju- 
diced, are  likely  to  defend  it  on  the  fame  .general  ground. 
If  they  take  different  and  oppofite  bypothefea  to  ferve 
as  a  ground  wo\k  for  their  fuperitruclure,  they  are  not 
likely  to  have  had  a  common  ground  in  fcripture.  Now 
t.ie  advocates  of  prefbvtery  take  quite  different  grounds 
to  reft  it  on.  Some  defend  the  whole  machine  as  di- 
vine, to  the  fmalleft  pin.  Others  pretend  to  fee  only 
the  fkeleton  in  fcripture,  with  a  power  to  fill  up  the 
outJines.  Others  defend  it  as  a  lawful  human  fyftem, 
upon  the  ground  that  we  are  bound  to  no  particular 
mode  of  church  government  in  fcripture.  Some  find 
the  prefbyterian  elder  in  fcripture,  and  fome  make  him 
only  a  prudential  human  expedient.  Some  give  him  a 
feat  in  eccleiit  Heal  .  ffemblies  in  his  own  right  ;  others 
in  right  of  the  people  whom  he  reprefents. — They  are 
as  divided  alfo  about  the  right  of  nomination  of  elders. 
Some  give  this  right  to  tne  congregation,  or  feat  holders, 
whether  fervants  of  Chriit  or  of  Satan  j  others  claim  it 
for  the  old  feffion.  Now,  I  think  the  inference  which 
any  rational  difinteretf ed,  unprejudiced  roan  would 
draw  from  this,  is,  that  they  have  no  common  fource 
from  which  they  draw  their  ideas.  If  they  had,  cer- 
tainly prefbytcry  would  not  be  fuch  a  caraelion.  If  they 
all  faw  the  fame  picfture  in  the  fcriptures,  furely  they 
would  not  give  fo  many  contradictory  accounts  of  it, 
when  it  was  their  interert  to  agree.  If  prrfbytery  had 
been  in  fcripture,  of  all  its  friends  Dr.  Campbell  o£ 
Aberdeen,  was  the  beit  able  to  defend  it  ;  yet  Dr. 
Campbell  gives  up  its  divine  right,  and  proves  beyond 
contradiction,  that  the  apoftolical  churches  were  inde- 
pendent.    If  ever  prtfbytery   could  be   found  in  fcrip» 


16 

ture,  the  luminous  and  penetratiog  mind  of  Dr.  Campbell, 
who  lived  and  died  at  the  head  of  a  Scotch  univerfity, 
would  certainly  have  traced  it.  The  pen  that  hath  fo 
unanfwerably  overthrown  -the  Jus  divinum  of  the  church 
of  England,  would  not  have  failed  to  have  eftdbliihed 
the  church  of  Scotland  on  that  enviable  foundation,  had 
it  been  poffiule. 

10  The  end  of  church  government,  and  church  meet- 
ings of  every  kind,  mult  be  the  edification  and  growth 
of  the  members,  and  the  promotion  of  brotherly  love. 
That  form  which  is  belt  calculated  to  promote  thefe 
ends,  is  the  moil  likely  to  have  been  initituted  by  Chrift. 
Now,  we  might  reft  this  upon  matter.-,  of  fa£t,  in  favour 
of  the  independents  ;  but  we  lhall  content  curlelves  by 
obferving,  that  their  peculiar  advancement  in  experi--* 
mental  religion,  deadnefs  to  the  world,  di  votednefs  to 
Chrift,  zeal  for  his  caufe,  and  love  towards  the  brethren, 
are  much  the  refult  of  the  principles  ot  their  conftiu- 
tion,  in  which  they  are  diflinguifhed  from  other  ftxicties. 
Some  of  thefe  are  their  feparation  from  the  wo  lc  into 
a  fpiritual  communion,  in  which  they  can  all  'eok  upon 
each  other  as  Chriftians,  upon  good  evidei.ee — their  fre- 
quent church  meetings,  and  mutual  public  exhortations 
—the  care  and  watchiulr.efs  that  eveiy  member  has  over 
every  other  as  his  '  brother's  keeper,"  and  not  commit- 
ting church  powet  to  a  few — the  opportunity  of  dilco- 
vering  every  talent,  and  occupying  even  the  fmalleft  in 
its  proper  fphere— the  clofe  union  of  all  the  members 
ricn  and  poor,  each  acling  on  the  other  as  the  different 
wheels  of  a  watch  fet  in  motion  by  the  main  fpring. 
Their  church  order  refembles  the  Macedonian  phalanx, 
which  fo  long  as  it  kept  its  ranks,  w  as  invincible.  There 
is  htre  no  pofllbility  of  playing  the  coward  ;  each  en- 
courages, and  in  a  manner  compels  the  other  to  do  his 
duty,  as  a  good  loldier  of  Chrift.  When  individuals  are 
under  temptation  to  give  ground,  nnd  begin  to  backfhde, 
the  wlole  body  acls  as  a  rere  rank,  to  encourage  t!  era 
to  behave  valiantly,  to  fuppoit  them  when  overpowered, 
to  give  tbem  an  opportunity  to  rally  when  they  are 
thrown  into  confufion,  to  prevent  them  from  running 


17 

from  the  field  of  battle,  and  to  pufh  them  on  again  to 
the  engagement.  The  gre<<t  piety  and  seal,  discovered 
in  individuals  of  other  feels,  is  no  objection  to  this.  Such 
perfons  would  have  been  Itiil  more  eminent,  had  they 
enjoyed  a  purer  communion  rl  leie  may  be  h'plthy 
men  in  a  very  unhealthy  climate.  This,  however,  would 
inot  induce  any  man  to  lay.  that  India  is  as  health  ;.il  a 
climate  as  Ireland.  Compare  the  nature  of  the  church 
conliifutions,  and  then  compare  the  general  body  of  the 
members  of  the  one,  with  that  of  the  otl  er,  nnd  if  jou 
are  unprejudiced,  you  will  rot  be  lor.^  in  fpt-.ce.  I 
forbear  to  draw  a  piclue  of  the  generality  <  f  p-efbyte* 
rian  connexions  :  it  is  really  too  hideous  to  be  reviewed. 
Befides.  many  of  the  evils  among  fome  of  them,  are 
not  the  neceflary  refult  of  the  prt  fbyterisfh  conltitu- 
tion. 

II.   Chrifl's  inftitmions  father  their ifelves.      If  a  child 
had  been  loft,  and  after  man>  1    pretenders 

had  come  to  the  father,  and  there  be  nbt  fu'ilV  lent  evid- 
ence from  tellimony  to  determine  between  them.'  would 
it  not  be  very  proper  to  look  for  a  refemblanc'e  to  the 
parents,  and  their  other  children,  eit!  er  in  bodily  ap- 
pearance, temper,  or  genius  ?  If  fuch  a  finking  r^fem* 
blance  is  found  in  any  of  them  it  will  be  inftahtly'4  con- 
cluded that  he  jathers  him/elf.—  In  the  fame  manner  it 
is  reafanable  to  expect  a  family  likenefs  fo  all  the  ordi- 
nances and  work^  of  God.  Let  us  the;i  apply  this  rule 
in  ^fcertaining  the  divine  legitimacy  of  the  form  of  church 
government.  Chrift  has  had  fi:ch  a  child,  but  he  has 
been  exchanged  at  the  nurfe,  and  a  vile  impoftor  rus 
been  impofed  upon  the  world,  during  all  the  dark  ages 
of  the  reign  of  Antichritt.  Since  the  refos  motion,  vari- 
ous pretenders  have  laid  claim  to  the  honour  of  heaven- 
ly birth,  h  might  be  highly  ferviceable  in  judging  of 
their  pretenfions,  to  compare  the  feature's,  mien,  temper, 
and  genius  of  each  claimant,  with  thofe  of  the  fatherland 
rm  other  undoubted  children  I  fh  >ll  content  rm  fell"  at 
prefent,  bv  examining  and  tracing  a  few  of  he  linea« 
saents  of  two  of  them,  prefbvtery  and  independency* 
£3    - 


18 

God's  wifdom  is  foolifhnefs  to  the  world,  and  the  wif- 
dom  of  the  world  is  foolifhnefs  with  God.  Whatever, 
then,  be  the  divine  form  of  church  government,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  it  muft  not  be  one  which  would  he  fuggefted 
by  human  prudence  or  policy,  that  it  may  appear  to  be 
of  God,  analogous  to  his  precedure  in  other  inftances, 
and  having  a  neceflity  for  his  prefence  and  guidance. 
It  mult  be  one  which  would  appear  defective  and  inade- 
quate, in  the  eftimation  of  the  wifdom  of  this  world, 
that  God  may  have  all  the  glory  of  upholding  it  himfelf. 
This  is  exactly  the  manner  of  the  Divine  procedure  in 
tvery  other  inltance.  The  wifdom  of  the  world  expect- 
ed Chrift  to  have  appeared  in  far  different  and  oppolite 
circumflances,  and  to  have  acted  in  a  quite  contrary 
manner,  in  erecting  and  eftablithing  his  kingdom  :  but 
the  Divine  wifdom  appears  in  this,  that  the  Almighty 
power  of  God  is  manifeited  in  accompliming  what  had 
evidently  no  other  fupport.  As  the  gofpel  was  fiiff  pro- 
pagated by  means  the  moll  unlikely  to  fucceed,  in  thero- 
felves  the  molt  inadequate  j  to  mew  that  the  unfeen  hand 
of  God  upheld  and  lpread  it,  and  that  the  Divine  pro- 
cedure be  confiftent,  it  feems  neceffary  that  the  govern- 
ment be  feen  folely  to  reft  on  Immanuei 's  moulders. 
As  this  King  was  introduced  and  inaugurated,  and  his 
kingdom  ertcted  in  a  manner  directly  the  reverfe  of  hu- 
man prudence  and  policy,  fo  alfo  is  it  probable  will  he 
govern  it.  To  conduct  the  government  of  his  king- 
dom upon  any  of  the  plans  of  human  governments  by 
meafures  and  affcmblies  formed  upon  a  worldly  model, 
wou'd  be  inconfiitent  with  the  whole  conduct  and  proce- 
dure of  Jefus. 

Now,  if  there  be  any  jufiice  in  this  reafoning,  a  very 
child  may  apply  it  to  the  point  in  hand — nay,  let  our 
enemies  themfeives  be  the  judges.  The  very  arguments 
by  which  they  fupport  prefhytery,  the  very  objections 
which  they  make  to  independency,  fully  prove  to  which 
of  them  this  character  belongs.  Prefhytery  has  every 
feature  of  a  child  of  this  world's  wifdom.  It  is  entirely 
a  political  inftitution,  every  part  of  it  analogous  to  civil 
polity.     In  this  view,  it  is  leally   a  vigorous  republic, 


19 

and  fo  far  as  its  power  extends,  it  fhews  that  it  knows 
well  how  to  exert  it.  Its  decifion,  by  majorities,  inftead 
of  unanimity  ;  reprefentation  in  ecclefiafticai  affemblies  ; 
fubordination  of  courts  j  and  the  right  of  appeal  ;  forms 
and  etiquette  of  bufinefs,  &c.  are  all  borrowed  from  the 
world.  On  the  contrary,  independency,  like  Chrift 
himfelf,  has  never  approved  itfelf  to  the  wifdom  of  this 
world.  Nay,  the  only  arguments  that  can  plaufibly  be 
urged  againft  it,  is  its  inlufficiency  for  any  other  than 
primitive  times.  In  no  civil  institution  in  the  world,  are 
the  diftinguifhing  features  of  independency  to  be  found. 
It  could  not  govern  a  private  family  ot  unregenerate 
men.  It  has  been  called  by  thofe  who  did  not  under- 
if  and  its  conflitution,  the  pureji  democracy,  hut  it  is  evi- 
dent that  it  is  rather  a  Chrijlocracy.  Chriit  alone  gov- 
erns. There  is  not  a  law  or  regulation  left  to  the  wif- 
dom of  man.  What  civil  government  ever  exifted,  in 
which  the  unanimous  confent  of  every  member  was  necef- 
fary,  in  every  inltance  ?  Human  affairs  could  nevei  be 
conducted  in  this  manner,  r.or  could  a  body  of  unconver- 
ted men  be  governed  in  a  church  in  this  way.  Nothing 
but  the  unfeen,  almighty  power  of  God  could  have  pro- 
tected and  propagated  the  gofpel,  in  the  circumftances  of 
its  appearance,  oppofed  by  all  worldly  powei>  :  nothing 
but  the  prefence  and  power  of  Jefus  could  make  the  ample 
machine  of  independent  church  government,  effeft  its 
end.  I  conclude,  then,  that  if  a  likenefs  to  God,  and 
an  analogy  to  his  procedure  in  other  inftances,  be  any 
token  of  childfhip,  independency,  and  not  prefbytery, 
is  the  lawful  heir. 

But  let  us  purfue  the  comparifon  in  fome  other  inftan- 
ces,  and  we  will  fee  that  prefbytery  has  not  a  feature  of 
the  family.  In  all  the  inftitutions  of  God  there  is  a -re- 
markable fimplicity,  but  claflkal  prefbytery  is  the  moft 
clumfy  and  complicated  machine  that  could  poffibly  be 
invented,  and  a  tedious  round-about  way  of  fettling  dif- 
ferences, and  tranfacling  church  bufinefs.  Several  hun- 
dred men,  from  the  moft  diftant  parts  of  a  province  or 
kingdom,  meeting  annually,  befides  all  their  fubordinate 
meetings,  is  a  thing  that  bears  no  refexnblance  to  the  fiio- 


20 

pile i ty  of  other  gofpel  inftitutions.  When  united  Ic 
thofe,  it  is  like  a  lober,  plain-dreiTcd  gentleman,  with  a 
huge  military  hat  and  feather  j  or  like  a  fmall  neat  chapel 
with  a  towering  fteeple.  But  peep  for  a  minute  into 
thtir  general  fynod  or  alTembly.  What  pomp,  what 
ftatelinefs,  what  importance  do  they  ^ilume  !  See  yon 
young  orator  artfully  apologizing  for  his  youth,  and  this 
aged  gentleman  looking  importance  from  his  years  of 
Handing.  Stop  a  little  ;  here  is  rudenefs  ;  ■'  chair  .'" 
"chair  /"  there  will  be  a  quarrel  about  a  trille  ;  "  but  the 
apoitles  quarrelled  at  feiufalem." — Here  now  are  feve- 
ral  days  lpent,  and  what  is  done  ?  Nothing  about  religion 
for  its  advantage  ;  nothing  but  what  could  have  been 
done  to  better  purpofe  in  any  congregation. 

I  might  trace  the  picture  much  further,  but  I  (hail 
only  barely  mention,  that  preibytery  is  too  expenfive 
for  a  Ci  kingdom  not  of  this  world."  The  other  children 
of  the  family  live  on  a  trifle  j.  if  this  is  the  heir,  he  is  a 
Take. 


21 

CHAPTER  III. 

On  the  Obligation  of  ApoQolical  Praflice, 

Having  given  fome  reafons  to  (hew  the  antecedent 
probability  of  a  divine  model  of  church  government, 
with  fome  obfervations  with  refpeft  to  the  plan  we  are 
entitled  to  expect,  before  I  proceed  to  ex?mme  the 
fcriptures  reflecting  the  claims  of  prefbytery  and  inde- 
pendency, I  fhall  endeavour,  in  this  chapter,  to  ettablifh 
the  obligation  of  the  practice  of  the  apoftolic  churches. 
Not  that  this  is  more  neceffary  to  me  than  to  the  true 
pre/by terians,  but  becaufe  it  is  beginning  to.be  fafhion- 
able  with  the  members  of  worldly  churches,  when  they 
are  oriven  from  the  fcriptures;  to  take  refuge  in  the  li- 
berty of  deviating  from  the  example  of  the  cpnflles  *. 

i .  The  combined  weight  of  all  the  arguments  a  priori, 
fall  into  the  fcale  of  the  obligation  of  the  example,  of  the 
apoitolical  cnurches.  We  cannot  pofitively  determine 
what  the  Biole  contains,  till  we  examine  it;  but  if  there 
be  every  reafon  antecedently  to  expect  a  divine  form  of 
church  government, and  if  it  isp  >fiible  to  trace  the  practice 
of  the  apollolical  churches,  is  there  not  every  reafon  to 
look  upon  this  as  the  divine  model,  exhibited  in  the  fcrip- 
tures as  an  univerfal  pattern  ?  The  arguments  a  priori,  I 
grant  are  inconclulive, if  no  form  could  be  pointed  out  from 
the  fcripture  ;  but  if  it  be  poffible  fo  'fcertain  th'  confti- 
tution  of  the  apoftolical  churches,  I  fee  no  good  reafon 
why  they 'mould  not  have  their  full  force.  Like  an  0 
in  figures,  they  draw  all  theii  value  from  their  fituation  > 

*  Dr  Stillino fleet  is  the  great  patron  of  thi?  hypothefis. 
In  his  Irenuwn  he  endeavours  to  unite  prefbytenans  and 
episccp-iiunb  by  pirtpofing  a  feheme  o'  a  lort  of  prtfbyieiian- 
cpiscopacy  But  to  tffcd  this,  it  was  nectfTary  for  him  to 
rid  himfUf  of  the  obligation  of  taking  tlie  apottles  of  Jtfus 
Chu:1  for  an  example.  I  originailv  intended  to  have  fol- 
lowed the  Doclor  through  his  p-rformanre  ;  but  I  found  I 
could  not  do  lb  without  exceeding  all  bounds. 


22 

Handing  alone  they  are  worth  nothing;  united  to  the 
approved  apoftoli&l   practice.    I   do  not  fee       •■:  their 

worth  c.»n  be  depreciated  or  then    force  invalidated. 

If  a  divipe  plan  of  church  government  be  extremely 
neceff-uv,  by  what  authority  does  any  man  reje&  the 
apoftolicai  ? 

2.  Not  only  the  general  fenfe  of  profelTing  Chriftims 
is  on  the  fide  of  the  obligation  of  apoftolicai  example, 
but  the  very  advocates  or  fe  contrary  opinion  evi.ient- 
Jy  betray  their  chagrin,  that  st  i'  not  in  their  Savour. — 
H  w  anxious  are  they  to  cattfh  at  every  thing  that  looks 
like  pproving  of  their  respective  c  lurche*  1  What  a- 
bundant  pains  do  they  take  to  de'ed  every  part  of  the 

of  t!  eir  adveri.iries,  that  is  not  ipoftolic 
feci  goes  as  far  as  it  can  in  company  with  the  apolties  5 
it  u  not  'ill  they  cannot  follow,  that  the  apoitle*  are 
acknowledged  p.s'inlufficient  guides.  Did  ever  any  man 
t$nhfk  oi  this  bypothefis,  till  he  found  npoflolic-d  practice 
agaihft  him  ?  Could  any  of  the  woildiy  churches  produce 
uniform  apdftolical  practice  on  their  fide,  how  would 
they  triumph  ! 

3.  If  the  apoftolicai  churches  are  not  a  mof'el  to  us, 
then  all  thofe  numerous  fcriptures  that  are  employed  in 
defcribing  thsm,  or  in  giving  them  direcli  ins,  are  ufeiefs 
to  us.  Why  is  fuch  lumber  contained  in  the  word  of 
God  ?  Ail  fcripture  is  faid  to  be  "  given  by  infpiration," 
and  "  to  be  neceflary  ;"  but  if  we  are  not  to  imitate  the 
apoi-olica!  churches,  there, are  many  paffages  in  the  New 
Teftament  that  are  now  abfolutely  ufeiefs.  Accordingly, 
it  is  very  evident  how  uninteresting  fuch  portions  of 
fcripture  are  to  all  that  hold  themfelves  at  libetty  to 
deviate  from  apoltolcal  practice,  buch  perfons  have  a 
much  more  barren  and  jtjune  revelation  than  others. 

4.  Either  the  apoftles  acled  by  divine  direction,  or  by 
their  own  wifdom,  in  the  constitution  of  churches.  If 
the  latter,  they  would  undoubtedly  have  told  us  fo.— 
But  if,  as  there  is  every  reafm  to  believe,  they  acted  by 
divine  command,  the  form  of  church  government  they 


23 

inftituted,  can  never  be  changed  but  by  the  fame  autho- 
rity. If  any  form  is  better  than  another,  furely  the 
npoitoiical  is  the  bell.  It  c  mnot  then  be  a  matter  of 
indifference  whether  we  follow  the  belt,  or  adopt  a  vvorfej 
If  the  rio.y  Gbolt  had  judged  it  expedient  to  dopt  a 
diffttcnt  loim  in  a  different  period,  or  in  different  cir- 
cumitiinces,  would  we  not  have  fome  intimation  of  it  ? 
Without  a  Divine  licenfe  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  alter 
or  infringe  in  the  fmalleft  degree.  We  may  as  well  af- 
fume  the  right  of  altering  any  other  apoftolical  inftitu- 
tion,  as  that  of  church  government. 

5.  There  can  be  no  danger  in  the  clofeft  imitation 
of  the  apoftolical  churches.  Is  any  man  lure  that  he 
does  not  difpleale  God  by  refufing  to  imitate  them  ?  Be- 
tween the  certainty  of  pleafing,  on  the  one  fide,  and  the 
poffibility  of  offending  on  the  other,  the  choice  which 
a  Chriftian  (hould  make,  is  evident. 

6  No  peifon  who  pleads  the  authority  of  apoftolical 
example  for  the  firft  day  Sabbath,  or  any  other  purpbfe, 
can  confiftently  reject  it  in  this  inftance. 

*jf  A  plan  in  model,  and  not  in  fyftematic  defcriptioo, 
is  waat  we  are  entitled  to  exptft.  A  direct  and  formal 
treatife  on  the  fubjedl,  which  fome  people  look  for, 
would  be  altogether  anomalous  in  {cripture.  After- ages 
are  no  where  addreffed  but  in  the  perfons.  as  it  were, 
of  the  apoftolical  churches  :  we  are  not  known  but  as 
tnembers  of  them.  Whatever  is  f.iid  to  them,  is  faid  to 
us.  1'hus  our  Lord,  promifing  his  continual  ptefence 
with  his  fervants  in  preaching  the  gofpel,  addreffe  them 
all  in  every  age,  in  the  peifon  of  the  apoftles  then  pre- 
ient,  •'  Lo  I  am  with  you  alway  to  the  end  of  the  world.'1'* 
*'  Where  two  or  three  of  you  are  met,  there  am  I." 
The  apoftlts  alfo,  fpe  king  of  what  was  to  happen  in 
every  after-age,  addrefs  thofe  to  whom  they  write  as 
concerned,  and  Warn  them  of  what  was  to  happen  to  us 
and  our  fuccefl'Mrs  to  the  end  of  the  world.  *'  We, 
"  which  are  alive  and  remain  unto  the  coming  of  the 
"  Lordj.ihall  not  pieveut  thtm  which  are  alleep.'*— 


24 

Here  the  apofile  addreffes,  in  the  perfon  of  the  church 
of  tie  I  heiTilonians,  which  then  Was  thofe  Chriftians 
which  (hill  be  on  the  earth  at  the  time  of  the  kcor.d 
coming  of  our  Lord.  I  mi^ht  quote  innumerable  ex- 
amples, were  it  neceffary  Now  this  being  the  cafe, 
that  after-ages  are  addieiTed  only  in  the  perfon  of  apof- 
tolical  churches,  how  ablurd  is  it  to  expecl  a  formnl  trea- 
tife  on  church  government  ?  Every  ncctffary  inftru&ion 
mult  have  been  given  in  the  forming  of  the  churches. 
How  prepofterous  would  it  be  for  an  apoftle,  after  he  had 
formed  a  church,  and  left  it,  to  write  a  treatife  to  that 
church  on  the  method  of  forming  a  church !  All  then  that 
can  be  expedted,  is  an  incidental  account  of  apoftolical 
practice.  The  fubjeft  cannot  be  formally,  but  inuirecl:- 
]y,  and.  as  it  were,  unintentionally  handled.  Suppofe, 
for  inftance,  the  apoltle  Paul  had  founded  the  churches 
of  Edirburgh,  and  after  his  departure,  had  written  -  let- 
ter to  them,  to  eftabliih  them  in  the  faith  :  would  any 
rational  man  expecl:  a  treatife  on  the  conltiuuion  of  a 
church,  which  he  had  already  conftitut'-d  •  No,  all  we 
couid  expeft,  would  be  an  allulioii  to  what  he  had  done. 
1  fay,  then,  according  to  the  analogy  of  the  manner  of 
revelation,  there  js  not  room  for  any  other  inlornntion 
on  church  government,  than  an  account  of  apoftolical 
practice.  Here,  1  think,  Dr.  Cambell  fails  of  his  u!ual 
acumen,  or  he  would  not  have  expedled  the  fubjecl  trea- 
ted in  "  another  n<anner,"  upon  the  luppnfition,  that  we 
are  abfolutely  bound  to  the  conftitution  of  apoftolical 
churches.  But  lome  othei  obfervations  on  this  fubject, 
I  will  referve  to  another  place. 

8.  The  tabernacle  itfelf  was  made  according  to  mo- 
del, and  not  from  a  verbal  delineation,  or  treatife. 
*'  Mofes  was  admonifhed  of  God,  when  he  was  about 
to  make  the  tabernacle.  For  fee,  (faith  he.)  that  thou 
make  all  things  according  to  the  pattern  (hewed  to  thee 
in  toe  mount.  '  Now  we  have  alfo  a  pattern  in  the 
mount,  for  our  New  Teftament  chuiches,  exhibited  to 
us,  in  thole  ot  apoftolical  conftitution. —  To  this  pattern, 
we  are  to  look  for  every  part  of  our  conftitution  and 
dilcipline.  Let  every  man  t  ke  care  that  he  make  every 
thing  in  a  gofpel  church,  after  the  pattern  of  that  ex- 


25 

hibited  to  us  in  the  fcriptures.  This  is  a  divine  model ; 
to  add  to  it,  or  take  from  it,  will  fpoil  the  beauty,  and 
diminifh  the  ftrength  of  the  building. 

9.  We  are  often  called  upon,  to  be  followers  of  the 
apoftles,  without  any  exception  or  limitation. — By  what 
authority  then  do  any  except  from  this  rule,  the  conduct 
of  the  apoftles,  in  the  formation  of  churches  ?  From  eve- 
ry general  command,  I  think  there  can  be  no  lawful  ex- 
ception, but  what  is  impoffible,  finful,  or  otherwife  de- 
termined. If  we  are  called  upon  without  referve,  to  fol- 
low the  apoftles,  1  think  the  injunction  extends,  not  mere- 
ly to  their  conduct  as  men,  but  particularly  as  our  exam- 
ples in  all  church  affairs  If  I  jultifya  quarrelfomedifpofl- 
tion  from  the  ex  ample  of  Paul  and  Barnabas,  I  am  co.  ulemn- 
ed  by  the  fcriptures.  But  this  quarrel  was  not  record- 
ed for  nothing.  It  is  for  an  example^ to  j^uardus  againft 
fuch  a  temper.  If  any  one  would  contend  tor  the  duty 
of  celibacy,  from  the  example  of  Paul,  his  example,  in 
this,  is  declared  not  to  be  binding.  If  any  man  would 
take  it  into  his  head  to  work  miracles,  like  the  apoftles, 
this  is  impoffible,  withost  receiving  the  power  of  an  a- 
poftle.  Yet  thefe,  and  fuch  as  thefe,  are  the  mighty  ob- 
jections alleged  by  Dr.  Stillingfleet,  againft  the  obliga- 
tion of  apofto!ical  example.  But  I  afk,  is  the  imitation 
of  apoftolical  churches  finful,  impoffible,  or  otherwife 
deter  mined,  in  anv  part  of  fcripture.  If  not,  I  demand 
a  reafon  for  excepting  it  from  the  general  injunction  *. 
With  what  reafon,  then,   does   Dr.   Stillingfleet   refufe, 

*  Not  only  the  conduct  of  the  apoftles  in  the  churches, 
is  exhibited  as  an  example  to  us,  but  their  very  antecedent 
characters,  as  well  a?  their  after-trials,  fupports.  joys,  &c  are 
recorded  for  our  encouragement,  inft rudtion,  or  example, 
to  avoid  or  practiie.  The  great  defignof  the  Almighty,  in 
allowing  the  rebellion  of  Paul  to  proceed  to  fuch  a  height, 
is  faid,  to  be  an  example  to  us,  that  the  moft  notorious  tin- 
ners mi^ht  not  be  afraid  to  conr.e  to  Chrifi,  1  Fim  i.  16. 
Paul's  declining  to  avail  himfelf  of  his  right  to  live  by  the 
gofpel,  and  his  working-  with  his  own  hands,  are  declared 
to  be  for  an  example  to  Chriftians  to  fupport  themklvesby 
induftry,  2  Theff.  iii.  9. 


26 

*vith  triumph,  to  be  bound  by  apoftohcal  example,  till 
we  produce  him  an  exprefs  commar.d,  for  that  particular 
inftance  ?  May  we  not,  with  the  fame  reafon,  demand  a 
pofitive  command,  at  the  end  of  every  apoftohcal  ex- 
ample ?  Here  is  a  general  command  ;  let  it  be  (hewn, 
why  this  particular  inltance  of  the  obligation  of  their  ex- 
ample, in  the  conltitution  of  apoltolical  churches,  (hould 
be  excepted.  Befides,  if  the  observation  above  bejuft, 
that  we  are  known  only  as  members  of  the  apoltolical 
churches,  what  room  was  there  for  a  command  to  after- 
ages,  as  diltinit  from  that  in  which  they  wrote  ?  An  ex- 
prefs command  to  a  church,  to  continue  the  form  of  go- 
vernment, which  an  apoftle  instituted,  we  would  think 
iuperfluous.  This  is  always  fuppofed,  without  a  pofitive 
declaration  to  the  contrary.  No,  it  lies  not  upon  us  to 
produce  iuch  a  command  but  on  thofe  who  take  upon 
them,  to  let  afide  the  obligation  of  apoftohcal  example  ; 
it  is  certainly  incumbent,  that  they  fliould  produce  their 
warrant.  If  God  inftituted  the  independent  plan, 
before  any  man  can  warrantably  deviate  from  it,  it 
behoves  him  to  produce  from  fcripture  a  fpecific  li- 
cence. 

10.  But  though  the  manner  of  divine  revelation  for- 
bids us  to  expedt  a  dirc<Et  addrefs  to  after-ages  upon  the 
obligation  of  apoltolical  practice,  yet  we  have  what  is 
equal  to  it.  There  are  inftances  in  which  an  older, 
completely  organized  apoltolical  church,  is  exhibited 
as  a  pattern  to  others,  more  imperfect.  Now,  if  the  a- 
poftolical  churches  are  exhibited  as  a  model  to  others, 
and  if  fome  are  prailed  or  blamed  for  their  conformity 
to,  or  difagreement  from  them,  it  is  very  clear,  that  the 
apoltles  intended  that  all  churches,  in  every  age,  Ihouid 
be  upon  the  fame  model  1  Cor.  vii.  17.  '•  So  or- 
dain I  in  all  churches."  1  Cor.  xiv.  33.  "  For 
God  is  not  the  author  of  confufion,  but  of  peace,  as  in 
all  churches  of  the  faints."  Here,  the  fame  order  is  in- 
timated to  exilt  in  all  churches.  But  how  is  God  the 
God  of  order  and  peace  in  all  the  churches  of  faints,  if 
he  has  not  ordered  every  thing  bimfelt  ?  If  he  has  lett 
men  to  choofe  their  form  of  church  government,  and  to 


27 

male  laws  for  themfelves,  could  it  be  faid,  that  l:e  is  noff 
a  God  of  confufion  ?  Ihe  confufion  th<it  would  exift 
on  that  furpofuion,  would  be  boundlels  and  endiefs. 
I  Cor.  xi.  16.  '•  We  have  no  fuch  cuftom,  neither  the 
chuiches  of  God/'  Here  the  other  apoftolical  churches 
are  exhibited,  as  a  model  to  this,  i  Cor.  xvi.  i.  "  Now, 
concerning  the  collection  for  the  faints,  as  I  have  given 
order  to  the  churches  of  Galatia,  even  fo  do  ye."  Here, 
the  example  of  the  churches  of  Galatia,  is  exhibited  as 
a  model  to  the  church  of  Corinth.  Titus,  i.  5.  '•  For 
this  purpofe.  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  fhouldft  fet 
in  order  thf  things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  elders 
in  every  city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee  "  Here,  we  fee, 
that  in  letting  in  order  the  things  that  were  wanting, 
even  the  evangf  lilt  Titus  was  i^ot  left  to  his  difcretion,. 
but  was  to  a£t  in  every  thing,  as  Paul  had  appointed, 
Titus  had  his  inductions,  as  an  officer  from  his  general, 
Can  we  pretend  to  greater  power  ? 

ri.  Is  it  poffible  for  a  church  to  exift  and  flourifti. 
without  obferving  any  other  laws,  rules,  or  regulations, 
without  any  other  offices,  or  modification  of  offices  ; 
without  any  other  difcipline  or  fanclion  of  difcipline  j 
without  any  otner  teft  of  admiffion,  or  means  of  pre- 
ferving  purity  ;  but  what  are  to  be  collected  from  apo- 
ftolical example  and  the  (cattered  information  of  Scrip- 
ture ?  Jf  this  queltion  can  be  aniwered  in  the  affirma- 
tive, what  apology  can  men  plead  for  their  innovations  ? 
The  advocites  for  a  liberty  of  deviating  from  the  form 
of  apolfolicai  churches,  lay  the  weight  of  their  caufe 
upon  this  argument  :  "  No  form  of  church  government 
could  anfwer  all  ages,  countries,  and  circumftances." 
What  do  men  mean  by  this  jargon  ?  Do  they  mean, 
that  no  form  would  anfwer  for  a  civil  eftabliffiment 
under  every  form  of  civil  government  ?  Do  they 
mean,  that  none  could  be  given  to  fuit  the  various  hu- 
mours of  carnal  men  ?  Yes,  the  true  meaning  of  this 
objection,  if  they  would  put  it  into  words,  is,  that  no 
one  form  could  be  given  to  ferve  as  a  part  of  a  poli- 
tical fyllem,  under  different  forms  of  civil  government 
—  that  the  fimple  apollolical  model,  fuited  only  apoC» 


28 

tolical  times,  being  incapable  of  governing  that  mix- 
ed multitude,  of  which  all  worldly  churches  CDniift — 
and  that  it  was  unfuitable  to  the  dignity  of  an  afpir- 
ing  clergy.  But  thefe  are'  the  very  credentials  of  its 
divine  appointment.  It  is  eminently  calculated  to  go- 
vern Chrift's  children,  who.  like  the  Spartan  youth, 
have  their  minds  moulded  to  their  laws  ;  but  it  will  al- 
ways be  found  to  fail,  when  members  are  ad  fitted, 
not  of  the  character  of  the  members  of  apoftoli- 
cal  churches.  N*y,  one  impure  member,  if  not  cut 
off,  when  detected,  would  ftop  the  harmonious  proce- 
dure of  the  whole  machine,  as  effeftually  as  a  watch 
is  flopped  by  the  accidental  admiffion  of  a  hair. 
But,  can  a  man  be  pleated  %  ith  toe  proditation  of  his 
wife  ?  Can  Chrift  be  pleafed,  or  his  caufe  advanced, 
by  the  proftitution  of  his  ordinances  ?  S<  all  the  fpiri- 
tual  kingdom  of  Chrift,  change  its  appr  nance,  with 
the  fluctuating  opinions  of  tije  world  ;  the  varying  laws 
of  temporal  kingdoms  j  or  the  caprice  of  carnal 
men  i 


29 

CHAPTER  IV. 
PRESBYTERY  EXAMINED, 


Having,  in  the  preceding  chapters,  dated  fome  rea- 
Tons  to  render  a  divir.e  model  of  church  government 
probable — having  thevin  iome  chara&eritlics  of  that 
which  is  likely  to  be  the  fcripture  model— and  endea- 
voured to  ellablith  the  obligation  of  apoilolical  example 
—  let  us  now  procetd  to  it  quire,  What  is  aBuatly  the 
mind  of  the  Scriptures  upon  this  point  ?  Let  prefbytery 
firlt  come  under  review.  One  tiling  I  would  premife, 
as  a  caution  to  myfeU*  and  all  who  treat  this  fubjeft— « 
Let  us  never  forget,  whtn  we  are  interpreting  fcripture 
texts,  that  they  are  the  words  of  the  Holy  Gbtift.  He 
that  forces  them,  to  make  thenxcounteuance  or  avoid  dif- 
countenancing  his  fyilem,  is  guilty  of  an  attempt  to  com- 
pel the  Holy  Ghoft  to  fpeak  a  lie,  and  bear  falie  witnefs. 
How  guilty  !  how  infamous  is  the  wretch  that  employs, 
or  compels  another  to  petjure  bimfelf  to  feive  his  in- 
tereft  !  But  how  much  more  criminal  and  infamous  is 
the  man  who  would  put  a  forced  interpretation  on  the 
language  of  the  Holy  One  I  1  have  heard  a  man  fay, 
that  indeed  it  was  very  criminal  to  employ  a  perfon  to 
fwear  a  lie  ;  but  if  at  an  affizes  he  lhould  run  ihort  of 
an  evidence,  he  would  think  no  great  harm  of  getting 
one  to  fwear  the  truth  for  htm,  though  he  was  r.ot  a 
witnefs  of  the  truth  of  the  matter.  1  am  afraid  there 
are  loo  many  fcripture  critics  who  act  upon  this  princi- 
ple. They  lay  it  down  as  a  matter  indifputable,  that 
fuch  a  tenet  is  true,  and  exprtfftd  clearly  in  fome  paf- 
fages  of  fcripture,  and  therefore  they  will  let  about  to 
filer.ee,  or  force  other  texts  to  compliance,  by  perver- 
fion.  .Let  us  then  attend  fimply  to  the  tefiimony  of  plain 
C3 


Scripture,  in  its  plain  acceptation.  It  is  really  the  in. 
tereft  of  the  Christian,  it  he  could  allow  himfelf  to 
think  fo,  to  difcover  and  embrace  truth,  though  ic  fiiould 
deprive  him  of  the  dearell  earthly  puffeflion. 

Another  thing  that  muft  be  attended  to,  by  all  who 
plead  for  the  divine  right  of  any  particular  form  of 
church  governn  ent,  is,  that  nothing  be  admitted  but 
what  is  clea: ly  founded  in  the  fcriptures,  either  in  pre- 
cept or  example.  Thofe  ti<at  pretend  a  divine  model, 
mult  produce  it,  without  the  help  of  conjecture,  or  pro- 
,   Labilities,  to  complete  it. 

e  great  bulwark  of  Prefbytery,  according  to  its 
friends,  is  contained  in  the  13th  chap,  of  the  Acts  of 
-.'  e  Apoflles.  Let  us  therefore  examine  this  portion  of 
fcripture,  by  the  rules  of  candid  criticifm,  and  fee  if  in 
any  thing,  it  £,:ve  "us  countenance  to  this  mode  of  church 
government  *.  The  matter  of  fa&  related,  feems  to  be  this : 
Certain  teccr.ers  had  gone  down  to  Antioch  from  Judea, 
who  had  inculcated  the  neceffity  of  the  observance  of 
Mofaic  law.  Fiom  verie  24,  it  appears,  that  if  they 
were  not  actually  fent  out  by  the  church  of  Jerufalem,  to 
preach  th*  gofpel,  they  at  leaf!  wifhed  to  have  it  uhder- 
they  had  apoftolical  authority.  The  church 
of  Jerufalem,  in  their  letter,  acknowledge  that  they 
went  out  from  them,  and  do  not  deny  their  being  fent 
by  them  ;  but  affirm  that  they  had  no  fuch  doftrine  in 
charge  from  them,  as  the  circumcifipn  of  Gentile  con- 
verts. Previous  to  this,  Paul  and  Barnabas  had  return- 
ed thither  from  their  fir  It  itinerancy.  Of  cenfequence, 
thev  oppofed  this  dodtrine  ;  and  after  they  had  much 
fruitless  difcufiion  upon  the  fubjec"t,  it  was  refolved  by 
the  brethren  in  Antioch  to  fend  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and 
certain  others,  to  confult  the  apoftles  and  church  of  Je- 
rufalem from  whom  thefe  teach eis  had  come  out.  But 
let  us  read  the  chapter  with  calmnefs  and  attention,  and 

*  This  fubjecl  is  fully  and  abiy  difculL-d  by  Mr  Ewipg 
of  Gtafgew,  in  "A  Lecture  en  part  of  the  15th  Chapta)  of 
the  Ads  of  the  Apoftles,"  v/hich "the  reader  would  do  well 
to  confult, 


31 

we  will  fee  that  it  contains  not   one   feature  of  modern 
prefbytery. 

1.  Where  do  we  find  here  the  Prefbyterian  fubordi- 
nation  of  courts  ?  Was  the  matter  firlt  tried  by  the 
church  felTion  at  Antioch  ?  Was  it  next  carried  to  a 
prefbytery  ?  Was  this  appeal  from  a  prefbytery  at  An- 
tioch ?  Who  fent  Paul  and  Barnabas  to  Jerufalem  ? 
It  will  puzzle  the  molt  metsphyficnl  head  to  difcover  a 
feflion  and  a  prefbytery,  or  either,  at  Antioch  ;  yet,  if 
it  cannot  be  proved  that  this  appeal  came  from  a  pref- 
bytery of  miniflers  and  lay  elders  at  Antioch,  the  meet- 
ing at  JerufaU.n  cannot  be  a  fynod. 

2.  If  this  be  allowed  to  be  a  fynod,  it  will  cut  oft*  all 
fupeiior  and  inferior  courts.  There  cannot  be  a  fupe- 
rior  court,  for  this  determined  for  the  whole  Christian 
world,  and  trom  it  there  could  be  no  appeal.  There 
cannot  be  fubor.iinate  prefbyteries  and  church  fefllons ; 
for  this  appeal  was  not  from  any  inferior  court,  but  im- 
mediately from  the  brethren  at  Antioch.  I  know  it  is 
faid,  that  the  prefbytery  of  Antioch  deputed  Paul  and 
Barnabas  ;  but  it  is  eaiier  to  fay  this  than  to  prove  it. 
The  antecedent  to  the  verb  "  determined,"  is  not  clear- 
4tf  exprefled.  The  Ifrudlure  of  the  fentence,  if  the 
ienfe  of  the  pafTage  would  admit,  would  allow  Paul  and 
Barnabas,  or  the  falfe  teachers  themfelves.  or  both  to- 
gether, to  be  the  perfons,  who  "  determined."  But 
this  will  make  nothing  for  prefbytery  j  nay,  it  would 
overthrow  it.  For  jf  Paul  and  Barnabas,  or  thefe  with 
the  falfe  teachers,  or  if  the  latter  only,  "  determined" 
to  depute  the  meffengers,  there  is  an  end  to  prefbytery. 
It  is  no  unufual  thing,  however,  in  reading  the  Ntw 
Teftament,  to  be  obliged  to  look  back  a  little  for  the  an- 
tecedent to  the  verb,  or  to  take  it  from  the  general  fenfe 
of  the  paffage.  The  moil  natural  interpretation  is,  that 
the  brethren  deputed  Paul  and  Barnabas ;  or  that  it 
was  done  conjointly  by  the  brethren,  the  falfe  teachers, 
and  Paul  and  Barnabas.  This  is  clearer,  from  the  words, 
as  they  ftand  in  the  original,  which  are  more  Hterally 
trar.iUted  :  "  They  appointed  Paul  ar.d  Barnabas,  and 


32 

certain  other  of  them,  to  go  w/>,*'  &c.  The  falfe  teach- 
ers could  not  appoint  Paul  and  Birnabas  to  go  up  to 
Jerusalem,  nor  is  it  likely  they  defired  it,  as  they  muit 
have  known  that  they  received  no  fuch  charge  from  that 
church.  But  be  this  as  it  will,  upon  no  fuppolitiou 
could  they  have  been  fent  by  a  prefbytery,  becnufe  no 
fuch  thing  is  mentioned  in  the  connexion.  Whatever 
be  the  antecedent  to  tTxgxc,xv,  it  mult  bt  found  among 
the  pertons  lpoken  of  in  tne  preceding  verfes.  It  may 
as  well  be  laid  that  the  magiftrates  of  Antioch  fent  them, 
as  the  fuppofed  prefbytery  of  that  place.  There  is  the 
f;rr.e  evidence  for  the  one  as  the  other.  Befides,  if  the 
appeal  had  been  from  a  piefbytery,  w.^uld  not  the  an- 
fWer  have  betn  to  the  aj-pe'i  ints  >  Tie  letter  of  the 
church  of  Jerufalem  would  not  have  beer,  addrttTcd  to 
the  brethren,  which  are  of  the  Gentiles,  but  to  the 
prefbytery  of  Antioch  r 

3.  This  aiTembly  carried  all  thirgs  by  complete  un- 
animity ;  therefore  can  be  no  model  to  any  aiTembly,  in 
which  a  mpjoiity  decides  for  the  whole.  Suppcie  it  to 
have  actuahy  been  a  fynod,  no  decree  of  a  modern  fy- 
nod  could  plead  its  authority,  which  was  net  carried  un- 
animously. 

4.  Suppofe  this  to  h*.ve  been  a  fynod,  it  only  warrants 
their  meeting,  as  matter  of  difpute  may  arife  among 
the  churches.  It  would  give  no  countenance  to  te- 
gular periodical  meetings.  But  prtfbyterian  courts 
have  their  dated  meetings,  whether  or  not  there  be 
bufinefs  of  importance  to  juftify  their  meeting. 

5.  The  decinon  of  the  church  at  Jerufalem  was  obii- 
ga' orv,  not  only  in  the  church  of  Antioch,  which  had 
appealed,  but  upon  all  crurches  in  the  world.  In  the 
letter,  verfe  23,  Svria  and  Cilicia  are  exprefsly  includ- 
ed. And  in  Paul's  fecond  journey,  he  and  his  com- 
panion gave  the  churches  in  the  cities  through  which 
they  palTed,  the  decrees  ordained  by  the  apoltles  and 
elders  at  Jerufalem.  Will  any  man  fay,  that  there  were 
xeprefentatives    from   thefe   places,   in  the    Jerufalena 


O.J 

affembly  ?  It  cannot  then  be  a  model  for  a  fynod, 
where  none  are  bound,  but  thofe  reprefented.  If  fy- 
nod»  will  quote  this  for  a  precedent,  they  mull:  no  long- 
er confine  themfelves  to  make  laws  for  their  own  con- 
nexion, but  decide  in  matters  of  religion  for  the  whole 
Chriftian  world.  But  as  this  affembly  confifted  folely 
of  the  members  of  one  church,  if  it  be  a  warrant  for 
foreigfi  interference  of  any  kind,  it  will  prove  that  an 
individual  church,  confilting  of  its  rulers  and  breth- 
ren, mould  give  law  to  all  the  churches  of  the  uni- 
verfe. 

6.  By  what  authority  is  the  meeting  at  Jerufalem 
called  a  fynod  ?  Who  were  the  members  that  compofed 
it  ?  Were  they  not  the  apoftles,  the  elders,  and  the  bre- 
thren of  the  church  at  Jerufalem  only  ?  Was  there  a 
fingle  reprefentative  either  minifter  or  lay  elder,  from 
any  other  church  upon  earth  ?  Thofe  who  accompanied 
Paul  and  Barnabas  from  Antioch,  were  not  reprefenta- 
tives  but  meffengers  of  that  church  to  report  the  mat- 
ter ot  fa£r,  and  receive  the  decifion.  Accordingly, 
the  letters  are  in  the  name  not  of  a  reprefentative 
council,  but  of  tne  apoftles,  the  elders,  and  brethren  at 
Jerufalem,  from  whom  the  troublefome  teachers  went 
out.  How  abfurd  would  be  their  language,  upon  the 
fuppofition  that  there  were  reprefentativesinit,  from  the 
church  of  Antioch,  and  others  "  For  as  much  as  we 
have  heard,  that  certain  which  went  out  from  us.""  Could 
the  Antioch,  and  other  reprefentatives,  put  their  figna- 
tures  to  this  letter  ?   Could  they  fay  that  they  went  out 

from  them  ?  They  went  out  from  the  church  at  Jerufa- 
lem, and  no  one  could  fay,  "  they  went  out  from  //J," 
but  the  church  at  Jerufalem.     The  language  "  went  out 

from  »/,"  plainly  excludes  from  that  affembly,  all  mem- 
bers from  foreign  churches. 

7.  As  there  ware  no  reprefentatives  in  this  meeting, 
from  any  other  church,  h  all  the  members  or  brethren 
of  the  church  at  Jerufalem,  were  admitted.  What 
is  there  fimilar  to  this  in  preibytery.  So  far  from  be- 
ing admitted  into  general  meetings,  they  have  no  Ih3re 


34 

in  the  adminiflration  of  the  affairs  of  a  fingle  congrega- 
tion. T.e  minifter  and  elder*,  are  the  fole  jud^ 
all  difputes.  The  people  muft  make  their  mud  known, 
by  petition  to  church  courts  Upon  the  fuppofition,  that 
tiis  was  a  representative  affembly,  coniifting  of  mem- 
bers from  the  different  churches  of  Jude.d,  Samaria.  An- 
tioch,  &c.  by  what  authority  did  the  brethren  of  the 
church  at  Jerufalem,  take  a  (hare  in  the  deliberations  ' 
Whit  peculiar  right  had  they  over  the  brethren  of  all 
other  churches,  to  a  place  in  this  -ffembly  ?  Why  did  not 
the  church  at  Jerufaltm  choofe  reprefentatives,  as  well 
as  the  other  churches  ?  Or,  if  the  Jerufnlerr.  brethren 
were  to  be  admitted,  why  not  all  the  members  of  al]  the 
churches,  or  at  lead,  as  many  of  them  as  might  choofe 
to  attend  -1  What  prelbyterian  affembly  is  fo  conilitut- 
ed  ?  This  would  deftroy  the  balance  of  power.  The 
admiffion  of  the  brethren  of  the  church  at  Jerufalem, 
plainly  fhews  that  it  was  not  a  reprefentative  affem- 
bly. 

8.  This  was  an  appeal  to  infpired  authority,  which, 
in  alter  ages,  could  be  imitated  only  by  appealing  to 
the  spoftolical  writings.  The  meffage  was  to  the 
apoltles,  and  to  the  elders,  who  were  men  endowed 
with  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit.  This  was  nothing  elfe 
than  our  appeal  to  the  Scriptures.  The  *«po{tolical 
writings  were  not  then  in  exillence  \  the  apoltles  them- 
felves  were  in  the  room  of  the  New  Feltament.  There 
was  no  other  poffi'jle  way  of  deciding  the  difpute.  The 
Scriptures  that  were  then  in  being  had  nothing  cxprefs 
upon  the  fubjecl.  But  what  queltion  can  now  arife  in 
any  church,  which  the  Scriptures  cannot  determine. 
They  contain  a  full  and  perfeel  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice. This  queftion  is  fettled  for  ever,  and  the  deci- 
fion  is  a  part  of  Scripture.  Never  can  the  fame,  or  a 
fimilar,  again  recur.  Paul  *nd  Barnabas,  it  is  true, 
were  at  Antioch  ;  but  they,  in  tome  fort,  were  esteem- 
ed a  party,  by  the  judiizing  teachers.  Bolides  this 
important  queliion.  the  condition  upon  which  the  Gen- 
tiles were  to  b*.  received  into  the  church,  behoved  to  be 
difcuffed  and  fettled  in  the  moll  public  manner,  that  the 


Jews  in  every  part  of  the  world,  might  the  more  readily 
unite  with  them.  Accordingly,  it  feems  probable  that  this 
was  the  time,  and  this  the  occauon,  that  Paul  went  up 
to  Jerusalem,  by  revelation,  Gal.  ii.  2*.  The  apoitles 
might  have  decided  the  quellion  themfelves,  but  it  be- 
hoved to  be  done  in  this  manner,  becaule  it  was  a  mat- 
ter in  which  the  church  of  Jerufalem  was  concerned, 
as  the  falfe  teachers  had  gone  out  from  them,  and  be- 
caufe  they  wiihed  in  this  firft  church,  to  give  a  puolic 
fpecimen  of  tranfafling  church  bufinefs.  This  fhews 
us,  that  matters  of  public  concernment  to  a  church,  are 
not  to  be  fmuggled  through  a  feffion,  but  conducted  in 
the  prefence,  and  by  the  confent,  of  the  whole  bre- 
thren. Though,  then,  it  affords  not  a  precedent  for 
one  church  to  appeal  to  another,  yet  this  portion  of 
Scripture  will,  to  the  end  of  the  world,  be  uleful  to 
direcl:  us  in  tranfadting  church  bufinefs. 

9.  The  decinon  of  the  church  at  Jerufalem  was  the 
jffue  of  the  infallible  interpretation  of  Scripture,  and 
the  voice  of  God  in  the  previous  onverfion  of  the 
Gentiles.  Peter  arguts,  that  if  God  had  already  given 
them  conveifion  without  circumcifion,  the  matter  muft 
be  already  determined,  as  they  were  really  already  fa- 
ved  when  they  were  converted.  If*  then,  circumci- 
fion, or  the  Mofaic  l^w,  bad  been  neceffary,  they  mult 
have  received  it  before  converfion  He  argues  from 
their  belief,  that  the  Gentiles  and  themfelves  fhould  be 
faved  in  the  fame  manner,  that  is,  wholly  through  the 
Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  which  could  not  be  the  cafe,  if  they 
mutt  be  circumcifed.  James  proves  the  fame,  by  an 
inference  from  a  paflage  of  one  of  the  prophets.  Now, 
none  can  plead  this  as  a  precedent  for  any  body  of 
men  to  fettle  controverted  matters  for  others,  who 
c,in:iot  plead  the  gift  of  infallible  interpietation  of 
Scripture. 

10.  If  the  apoftles  prefumed  not  to  give  their  deci- 
fio:i,  without  giving   fuch    reaions,  upon   which   it   was 

*  See  Innes's  Rcafuns,  page  39. 


36 

founded,  how  arrogant  are  thofe  p.flfemblies,  who  make 
their  own  opinion  cf  expediency  the  law  of  every  in- 
dividual !  \\  ere  fuch  sfitrr.blies  of  God's  own  appoint- 
ing, yet,  if  their  jioceedings  are  not  directed  by  the 
Scriptures  ;  if  they  cannot  plead  the  fanttion  of  the 
Scriptures  for  every  decifion.  their  a£\s  would  be  inva- 
lid. Let  fynods  apply  this  criterion  to  their^lecrecs, 
and  it  will  at  once  fvveep  away  all  their  prudmtiat re- 
gulations and  human  expedients,  and  every  aft  that  can- 
not plead  txprefs  Scripture.  It  will  not  be  enough, 
that  fuch  a  thing  is  the  "  mind  of  this  fynod"  but  that 
fuch  a  thing  is  the  mind  of  Scripture,  the  voice  of 
God. 

II.  No  body  of  men  can  plead  this  as  a  precedent 
to  determine  in  matters  of  religiontor  others,  who  can- 
not preface  their  decree  with  ;  "  It  feenitd  good  unto 
us,  and  to  the  Holy  Ghoji.'''1  Without  this,  their  deci- 
fion is  as  invalid  as  an  act  of  Parliament  without  the 
fanttion  of  the  king. 

12.  Whatever  be  the  divine  model  of  church  go- 
■vernroent,  it  is  in  no  mealure  irsvefied  with  a  power 
of  legiflation.  The  queftion  of  a  right  to  make  laws 
according  to  circumitances,  for  the  government  of 
Chrifi's  church,  and  the  inquiry  into  the  divine  ioim 
of  its  government,  are  entirely  diftincl.  Whether 
epifcopacy,  prefbytery,  or  independency  be  of  God,  to 
none  of  them  can  belong  a  right  to  enact  new  laws, 
any  more  than  to  promulgate  new  doctrines.  The  bu- 
firtl's  of  church  lulers  is  not  to  make  laws,  but  to  exe- 
cute the  laws  which  they  find  enaded  by  Chtifi,  in  the 
New  Teftament.  If  an  individual  independent  church, 
were  to  take  upon  itfelf  to  enadl  laws,  draw  up  a  plan 
of  rules  and  regulations  for  their  government,  and  v\or- 
fnip,  I  would  have  the  fame  objections  to  it,  that  I  have 
to  prefbytery.  To  fuppofe  a  liberty  to  enact  laws  or 
regulations,  according  to  the  exigence  of  circumftances, 
is  to  artaign  the  competency  of  Chrift,  as  the  King  of 
the  church,  and  a  declaration  that  he  hath  left  the  code 
of  laws  imperfect.     Executive  and  legiflative  authori- 


37 

ty,  even  in  civil  affairs,  are  entirely  diftincl:,  and  in  the 
bed  governments  are  lodged  in  different  hands.  The 
parliament  enacts  laws,  and  the  civil  naagiftracy  exe- 
cutes them.  As  well  might  the  civil  magifi rates  of  a 
■county  meet  to  frame  laws,  in  imitation  of  the  parlia- 
ment, as  church  rulers  plead  the  right  of  making  laws, 
becaufe  the  infpired  apoftles  of  God  did  fo.  Church 
rulers  are  to  execute  the  laws  which  the  apofiles  enac- 
ted. Every  new  law  is  an  a&  of  treafon  againft  Chrift, 
and  an  attempt  to  rob  him  of  the  moil  valuable  prero- 
gative of  his  crown.  How  aftonifning  is  it  to  hear 
men  arguing  fo  warmly,  that  Chrilf  would  not  leave 
his  church  without  a  form  of  government,  who  fuppofe 
that  he  has  left  it  without  a  fufficient  code  of  laws  ! 
Surely  it  is  as  neceffary  to  have  divine  laws  for  the 
government  of  (Thrift's  church,  as  a  divine  plan  of  exe- 
cuting tboie  laws.  If  the  laws  are  human,  what  avails 
it  that  the  plan  of  government  be  agreeable  to  the 
Scripture  model  ?  Were  we  then  to  allow  that  the  plan 
of  church  government,  by  fynods,  &c.  &c.  was  the 
true  one,  (fill  their  bufinefs  would  be  very  different 
from  what  it  is.  They  would  not  meet  as  leg:fhtors, 
but  as  jurors,  to  judge  of  the  application  of  Chrift's 
laws.  Suppofe,  for  inflance,  that  a  member  of  their 
communion  was  charged  with  being  an  extortioner,  a 
reviler,  a  drunkard, &c.  there  is  an  exprefs  law  of  Chrift, 
thnt  he  fiiould  become" a  fubjcct  of  difcipline.  Now, 
their  bufinefs  would  be  to  judge  the  offender  by  the  law 
of  Chrift,  examine  proofs,  and  determine  whether  or 
not  the  charge  was  fairly  applicable.  But  it  happens, 
that  this  rule  is  given  to  the  brethren  of  an  individual 
church,  and  not  to  a  fynod  or  preibytery. 

But  the  very  idea  of  a  right  of  legiflation  in  the 
church  of  Chrift,  fuppofes  infallibility  in  the  legiflators. 
To  fuppofe  that  Chrift  would  give  a  commiffion  to  men, 
to  make  laws,  and  a  command  to  his  people  tc*  obey 
them,  while  at  the  fame  time,  he  would  lesve  fuch  men 
without  infallible  direction,  is  moniiroufly  abfurd.  If 
fynodb  are  fallible,  they  may  eincT;  finful  law*,  and  en- 
force them  in  the  awful  name,  and  by  the  authority  of 
D 


33 

teLord  Jefus  Chrifl.  If  they  are  not  infallible,  why 
do  they  enforce  their  laws,  as  if  they  were  infallible  ? 
Do  they  not  enforce  the  fmalleft  la*w  they  enaft,  with 
the  fame  rigour  they  ci;uld  do  a  law  of  Gcd  ;  Nay,  it 
is  very  poffible  to  break  many  of  the  laws  of  God  with. 
impunity,  while  a  law  of  fynod  or  prefbytery  mult  be 
inviolable.  If  an  individual  approve  not  of  any  law, 
the  only  redrefs  he  has,  is  to  ftparate.  He  has  no  li- 
berty to  aft  upon  his  own  convictions.  Thtir  opinion 
of  expediency  muft  be  his  guide.  Now,  if  they  are 
not  infallibly  right,  why  do  they  not  leave  individuals 
to  aft  according  to  their  own  convictions  ?  Is  not 
this,  to  "  teach  for  doftrines  the  commandments  of 
men  ?" 

r 

Upon  the  whole,  in  the  15th  chap,  of  Acts,  we  have 
no  precedent  for  any  foreign  interference  among  the 
churches  of  Chriit.  The  diitinguilhing  features  in  this 
afiembiy,  are  not  to  be  found,  nor  ever  can  be  found, 
in  any  affembly  on  earth.  If  it  be  alked,  of  what  ufe  is 
this  relation  to  us,  if  it  does  not  warrant  us  to  decide  dif- 
ferences in  a  Gmilar  way,  I  would  anfiver,  that  whenever 
a  text  of  Scripture  is  fo  explained,  as  to  be  rendered 
ufelefs  to  after-ages,  I  readily  grant,  that  it  certainly 
mull  be  a  forced  explanation.  But  have  we  not  here 
a  precedent  for  appealing  to  the  apoltles.  in  all  our 
controverlies,  as  the  church  of  Anticch  did  >  Have  we 
not  here  a  precedent  of  applying  every  doftrine,  and 
cbfervance,  and  rite  and  regulation  of  churches  to  the 
■word  of  God  ?  If  the  apoltles  d:ew  their  conclusions 
from  this  fource,  (hall  human  prudence,  and  expedience 
direft  church  rulers  >  Every  tittle  mult  be  brought  "to 
ihel  w  ?nd  to  the  tellimony  •,  whoever  fpeaks  not  agree- 
able to  this,  it  is  becaufe  there  is  no  light  in  them." 
Hav  we  not  here  an  -dmirable  model  for  the  trandc- 
tion  of  all  church  bufinefs.  The  queftion  could,  in- 
deed, only  be  determined  by  apofiles  ;  but  as  it  was  an 
affair  in  which  the  church  at  ferufalera  was  concern- 
ed, and  to  give  us  a  living  model  for  tranfafting  church 
bufinefs,  the  apoltles  ooniider  the  matter  in  conjiv.ftion 
with  the  whole  church.     What  a  beautiful  pifture  does 


3D 

it  give  us  of  a  church  meeting  !  It  is  not  a  minifter 
and  feffion,  nor  the  minivers  and  lay  elders  of  a  diftricl, 
but  the  apollles,  ekrers  or  pallors,  and  brethren.  When- 
ever the  paftors  and  brethren  of  a  particular  church 
come  together  now,  they  mud  have  the  apoftles  in  their 
,  by  whofe  writings  they  ate  to  condudl  all  their 
affaiis.  i 


CHAPTER  V. 

Of  the  Office  of  Lay- Elders. 

Having,  in  the  laft  chapter',  examined  the  pretentions 
of  prefbyterians,  as  founded  on  the  relation  contained 
in  the  15th  chapter  of  the  A£ts  of  the  apofHes,  I  in- 
tend, in  this,  to  enquire  into  the  validity  of  the  office 
of  lay  elders.  Preibyterians  themfelves  are  not  agreed, 
either  as  to  the  foundation,  extent  or  prerogatives  of 
this  office  ;  a  circumftance  that  will  go  far,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  every  unprejudiced  inquirer,  to  prove  that  the 
office  is  not  fcriptural.  As  to  the  fcripture  authority 
of  lay-elders,  fome  refer  us  to  the  office  of  deacon. 
"  Though  the  name  is  not  fcriptural,  (fay  they,)  yet 
the  office  is."  But  here  I  would  remark,  that  the 
names  are  not  more  different  than  the  offices.  A  fcrip- 
ture deacon  is  an  officer  in  the  church  of  Chrift,  for 
managing  its  temporal  concerns,  and  attending  to  the 
wants  of  the  poor  brethren.  He  has  no  concern  in  the 
ruling  of  the  church,  more  than  the  reft  of  the  bre- 
thren. A  lay-elder  is  compounded  of  a  New  Tefta- 
ment  deacon,  the  half  of  a  New  Teftament  elder  or 
paftor,  as  he  is  a  church  ruler,  and  a  part  of  the  office 
of  an  apoitie,  as  a  legifiator,  to  make  laws  for  the 
church.  In  the  fuperior  courts,  he  is  looked  upon  by 
fome  as  a  reprefentative  of  the  people  ;  by  others  as 
the  reprefentative  of  his    own   order.     In  either  view, 


40 

his  office  h  derived  from  our  ideas  of  civil  policy  ;  for 
there  is  not  the  (h  idow  of  any  luch  reprcientation  ru  the 
word  of  God.  It  is  abfyrd  in  trie  extreme,  to  found 
his  Office  on  that  of  the  Scripture  deacon,  iVciny  it  ex- 
tends fo  much  farther.  If  he  is  the  fame  *as  the  deaconr 
let  him  do  the  deacon's  office  onlv.  Befides,  if  he  be 
the  de.icon,  why  has  he  been  called  elder  ?  Has  not  the 
father  the  beft  ri«ht  to  give  the  name  to  the  child  ?  1$ 
not  the  Spirit  of  him  who  inftituted  the  office,  the  beft 
judge  of  the  mod  fitting  n^me  ?  Efpecially  as  the  name 
was  appropriated  to  another  order  in  the  church,  why 
was  it  chofen  ?  If  men  thought  that  they  could  give  a 
more  proper  and  decent  name  to  this  office,  than  the 
Spirit  of  God  had  done,  which  is  not  a  very  modeft 
fuppofition,  why  did  they  take  that  which  he  bad  af- 
iigned  to  paftors  }  Has  not  the  tendency  of  this  been 
to  miflead  the  EngLifh  reader,  and  make  him  believe, 
that  where  he  meets  the  word  elder,  in  the  New  Tef- 
tament,  the  prelbyterian  elder  was  intended,  and  not  the 
pallor.  This  has  been  one  of  the  moft  fuccefsful  artifi- 
ces of  prieftcraft  in  all  ages.  But  there  are  others  who 
pretend  to  find  both  name  and  office  in  the  New  Tef- 
tament,  and  produce  as  their  authority,  I  Tim.  v.  17. 
"  Let  the  elders  that  rule  well,  be  counted  worthy  of 
double  honour,  efpecially  thty  who  labour  in  word  and 
doclrine."  '"  Here  (fay  they)  is  an  evident  diftinclion, 
between  ruling  and  teaching  elders.  There  mult  be 
fome  elders  to  rule,  and  others  to  teach."  To  this  I 
arifwer, 

I.  Allowing  the  prefbyterlan  explanation  of  this  text, 
in  its  utmoft  latitude,  what  does  it  make  ?  Granting 
that  there  ffiould  be  a  body  of  lay  elders  to  join  with 
the  preaching  elders,  in  ruling  a  church,  does  this  give 
any  counten  mce  to  a  church  feffion  as.  a  body  of  legilla- 
tors,  to  make  laws,  rules,  and  regulations  for  the  con- 
gregation  '  Their  being  church  rulers,  does  not  confti- 
tute  them  church  legillators.  Upon  this  fuppofition, 
their  oufinefs  would  be  to  carry  the  laws  of  Clriif  into 
effect,  not  to  make  laws.  Neither  would  this  give  any 
countenance  to   a  minifter  and  feflion,  exclufively  judg- 


41 

ing  of  the  application  of  difcipline,  and  engroffing  the 
whole  power  of  the  church  into  their  own  hands. 
Whether  the  elders  of  a  particular  church  be  all  pallors, 
or  fome  ruling,  and  others  teaching  elders,  to  neither 
would  belong  the  fole  right  of  judging  when  the  laws  of 
Chrilt  were  to  be  applied.  If  a  brother  was  accufed,  the 
whole  church  would  judge  him  according  to  the  law  of 
Chrilt;,  and  if  he  is  found  guilty,  the  bufinefs  of  church 
rulers  is  to  execute  the  law  of  Chrilt,  which  the  church 
has  judged  applicable  ;  juit  as  a  judge  pronounces  the 
verdict  found  by  the  jury.  But  a  church  feffion  is  not 
only  a  parliament  to  make  laws,  but  a  jury  to  judge  of 
the  application  of  both  their  own  and  Chrift's  laws. 
The  brethren  are  entirely  excluded.  They  may  lodge 
a  complaint,  or  appear  as  a  witnels,  but  in  judging  of  the 
guilt  or  innocence  of  the  accufed,  they  have  no  (hare. 
I  do  not  ftay  here  to  (hew  that  this  is  contrary  to  the 
apoltolical  commands,  in  which  the  whole  church  is  in- 
truded and  charged  with  judging  of  the  application 
of  difcipline.  This  I  intend  to  fhew  in  another  place. 
What  I  would  obferve  here,  is,  that  according  to  their 
own  interpretation  of  this  text,  there  is  no  foundation, 
for  the  legiflative  or  exclusive  judicial  authority  of 
church  feffions. 

2.  Allowing,  from  this  text,  an  order  of  ruling  el- 
ders, diltinct  from  teaching  elders,  this  gives  no  coun- 
tenance to  a  body  of  what  are  called  by-elders  :  that 
is,  men  not  invefted  with  the  p;ltoral  office.  Such  rul- 
ing elders  would  be  as  really  pallors,  bifhops,  miniilers, 
&c.  as  the  preaching  elders.  The  office  of  a  preach- 
ing elder  would  not  be  fuperior  to  that  of  the  ruling  el- 
der The  ruling  elder  would  be  a  paftor  of  the  church, 
inverted  with  the  perioral  character,  in  as  full  a  man- 
ner as  the  preaching  elder.  The  only  legitimate  con- 
clufion  that  could  be  drawn  from  this  interpretation, 
would  be,  that  in  every  chu'ch  there  fhould  be  two  or- 
ders of  ministers,  the  ore  for  ruling,  -nd  the  other  for 
preaching  ;  and  that  neither  of  thefe  had  a  right  to  in- 
terfere in  the  department  of  the  other.  Tht  preach- 
ing elder  was  not  to  rule,  any  more  than  the  ruling  el- 
D  3 


42 

3er  was  to  preach.  The  preaching  elder,  then,  fliould 
not  prefi.de  in  the  fefiion,  nay,  he  iliould  have  no  feat 
in  it,  any  more  than  tne  ruling  elder  fliould  have  in  the 
pulpit.  If  the  one  is  only  to  rule,  the  other  is  only  to 
preach.  If  the  one  mull  not  mount  the  pulpit,  neither 
mull  the  other  fit  in  church  court.  All  theo  that  can  be 
fairly  inferred  from  this  interpretation,  is,  that  in  the  pa- 
floral  office,  there  are  two  diftindl  departments,  which 
fliould  not  interfere  with  each  other  ;  that  thole  ap- 
pointed to  rule,  fhould  rule  ;  and  thofe  appointed  to 
preach,  fliould  preach  j  which  inftead  of  fervin^  would 
overthrow,  from  the  foundation,  the  whole  prelbyterian 
fyflem.  If,  then,  we  fliould  allow  that  there  is  in  this 
text,  an  order  of  ruling  elders,  diftincl  from  another 
order  of  preaching  eldeis,  ftill  fuch  ruling  elders  would 
be  pjftors  or  biihops,  and  nothing  a  kin  to  preihyteiiafc 
elders.  Nay,  the  ruling  elders  would  be  more  eminent- 
ly, if  not  exclusively,  the  bilhops  or  overleers.  Over- 
light  furely  belong*  rather  to  the  ruler,  than  the  preach- 
er. 

3.  Is  it  poffible  that  two  orders  fo  different  as  that 
of  minifl ers  and  lay  elders,  (hould  be  called  invariably  in 
Scripcure,  by  the  fame  name  ■>  is  this  like  the  perfpicuity 
of  the  Bible  >  Is  it  probable,  that  when  the  New  Ief- 
tament  writers  employ  fo  many  words  to  denote  the 
fame  office,  hs  bifliop,  prefbyfer,  ihepherd,  &c  they 
could  not  afford  a  diltindt.  name  for  tie  office  of  lay  el- 
der if  it  was  apoilolical  -  L  this  agreea  ile  to  the  ufe  of 
any  language,  upon  any  fubjtcl  Elpecially,  is  it  agree- 
able to  the  genius  of  thj  philofop'iic  language  of  Gieece, 
where  every  [hide  of  difference  in  idea,  is  nruiked  by  a 
different  word,"  expreflive  of  ii  r  But  the  Englilh  ree- 
der  of  the  riaoft  common  underflanding  muft  be  con- 
vinced that  it  is  impoflible  for  the  Greek  t\ord  jrgec£v- 
t.^;;  to  denote  two  lo  widely  different  officers  hom  the 
ule  of  our  own  woid  elder.  I  hough  this  is  the  exacl 
tranflation  of  the  Greek  word,  and  in  the  estimation  of 
pre(h\ teiians  mull  include  both  minilter  and  lav-t-lder, 
yet  to  avoid  confuuoii,  it  his  been  appropriated  by  them 
to  denote  the  latter  only.       What  preibyten..n   {peaks 


43 

promifcuoufly  of  minifters  and  lay-elders  by  the  com* 
mon  name  elders  ?  Or  who  would  underftand  him  if  he 
did  }  Yet  fuch  undefined,  indetermined  language,  they 
fcruple  not  to  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  Holy  Ghoit. 
If  ever  they  ule  the  word  elder  to  denote  the  minister, 
they  are  obliged  to  prefix  the  word  lay  to  it,  when  at- 
tributed to  the  preibyterian  elder,  to  prevent  oblcuri- 
ty.  Now,  if  we  cannot  talk,  in  Englilh  of  minifters 
and  preibyterian  elders  by  the  fame  name,  is  it  pof- 
fible  that  the  Scriptures  fhould  be  guilty  of  this  obiu- 
rity  ? 

4.  Granting  that  this  text  does  confiitute  two  orders 
of  elders,  then  there  will  be  three  orders  of  officers  in 
every  church,  and  the  preibyteiians  want  the  third. 
They  have  not  the  deacon.  '"  Yes,  (fay  they),  our  el- 
der is  the  deacon.1'  But  upon  what  authority  do  they 
combine  oflicts,  xvkich  rhe  apoiiles  kept  diitinct.  There 
is  incont'eftibly  an  order  of  deacons  \  if  there  be  two 
orders  of  elders,  there  fhould  be  three  diitinct  orders 
in  every  church.  No  man  hath  \uthority  to  combine 
any  two  of  them  into  one,  any  more  than  to  make  a 
new  order  over  the  reft.  If  it  be  faid,  that  the  office 
of  the  lay  elder  and  t.iat  of  the  deacon  are  the  fame,  I 
have  already  fhewn  that  they  are  widely  different. 
The  office  of  the  deacon  is  to  take  care  of  the  poor  ; 
whereas,  if  there  be  a  diftinct  order  of  ruling  elders, 
their  office  mud  be  to  rule  the  church.  Is  there  any 
evidence  in  Scripture,  that  thefe  two  offices  were  com- 
bined into  one  ?  Ti  e  office  of  the  deacon  is  in  itfelf  no 
more  connected  with  ruling,  than  with  preaching.  To 
rule  in  the  church,  and  to  take  charge  of  the  poor,  are 
offices  diftind  in  themfelves,  and  feparated  in  the  New 
Teltament. 

5.  If  there  had  been  two  orders  of  elders,  fo  difiincl: 
as  that  of  lay  and  preaching  elders,  is  it  poffible  that 
their  offices  and  qualifications  fhould  oe  included  in 
the  fame  defciiption  ;  In  defcnbing  the  office  of  the 
elder,  and  his  qualifications,  no  notice  is  tt.ken  of  two 
orders,  one  -as  requiring  a  different  kind  of  qualifica- 


44 

tions  from  the  other.  They  are  called  upon,  with- 
out exception,  to  feed  the  flock,  take  the  overlight  of 
it,  &c.  5  and  are  all  required  to  be  ^^xy.rtKc?,  "  fit  to 
teach,"  which,  as  Dr  Campbell  lias  oblerved,  could 
hardly  be  the  cafe,  if  fome  of  them  were  to  have  no 
concern  in  teaching.  This  candid  inquirer  has  given 
up  this  text,  and  thinks  it  is  too  trivial  a  circumftance, 
upon  which  to  found  fo  material  a  ditlindtion.  It  is 
not  faid,  that  a  preaching  elder  mull  have  fuch  and 
fuch  qualifications,  and  do  fo  and  fo,  but  the  elder, 
which  mull  include  every  difiinclion  of  elders.  Be- 
fides,  the  words  elder  and  bifliop  are  perfectly  inter- 
changeable, conftantly  applied  to  the  fame  otficers,  as 
all  prefbyterians  will  allow.  Now,  if  there  be  an  or- 
der of  lay  elders,  there  mull  be  aifo  an  order  of  lay- 
biihops  j  that  is,  men  who  have  the  paj} oral  office \  yet  are 
not  pajlors, 

6.  Commentators  feem  generally  agreed,  and  the 
18th  verfe  abfolutely  requires  that  nuv)  here  tranflated 
*'  honour, "  fign'fies  the  honourable  mintenance  of  the 
tninifters  of  the  go/pel.  The  apoftle  proves  that  they 
are  worthy  of  this  ti/xt)  from  the  law  of  Mofes  refpedl- 
ing  the  ox  employed  in  treading  out  the  coin,  and  from 
the  words  of  our  Lord,  with  refpeft  to  thole  engaged  in 
preaching  his  word.  Now,  the  argument  drawn  from  this, 
goes  directly  to  fhew  that  all  thofe  elders,  fpoken  of  in 
the  i  7th  verfe,  are  worthy  ot  honourable  iupport.  It 
dot'  not  indeed  require  that  a  church  is  in  every  fitua- 
tion  to  Iupport  all  its  labourers.  Some  may  not  need 
it  j  the  church  may  be  fo  poor  that  it  cannot  Iupport 
more  than  one  pallor.  There  is  nothing  to  prevent  it 
from  ufing  the  labours  of  fome  who  fupport  themfelves 
by  lawful  induftry.  But  the  text  undoubtedly  implies, 
that  all  elders  are  worthy  of  fupport,  and  if  they  need, 
and  the  church  can  give  it,  it  is  their  right.  Do  pref- 
byterians tiiink  it  their  duty  to  fupport  their  elders,  or 
will  <ny  one  fay,  that  they  are  worthy  of  it  ?  If  not,  they 
cannot  be  the  elders  of  which  the  apoltle  fpeaks.  Be- 
fides,  the  iSth  verfe  proves  inconteitibu ,  that  nil  the 
elders  fpoken  of  in  the  17th  veife,  have  the  fame  paf- 


45 

tonl  character,  and  are  employed  in  the  fame  work* 
They  are  all  "  treadeis  out  of  the  corn,'1  all  "  labour- 
ers worthy  of  reward."  How  do  prefbyterian  elders 
"  tread  out  the  corn  ?"  In  what  manner  do  the  mod 
confcientious  of  them  labour  fo  as  to  be  worthy  of  re- 
\vriid;  Thefe  figures  reprefent  the  elders  as  labouring 
conflantly  in  the  work,  of  the  gofpel,  and  having  that 
lor  their  employment  as  the  ox  was  daily  employed  in 
early  d/tys,  and  till  the  prefent  time  in  fome  countries,  in 
"  treading  out  the  corn,"  and  as  a  labourer  is  employed, 
not  occalionally,  but  conftantly  in  his  labour.  bhoald 
it  be  laid,  that  the  illuftrsrion  in  the  1 8th  verfe  is  ap- 
plicable only  to  the  latter  part  of  the  17th  verfe,  I  an- 
fwer,  that  befide  the  necelTity  of  referring  it  to  the 
whole  verfe,  the  texts  quoted  by  the  apoille,  would  not 
be  relevant  in  that  view.  They  go  to  prove  the  pro- 
priety of  fupport  in  general,  and  not  a  fuperiority  of 
lupport. 

7.  Hitherto  I  have  Ranted,  that  this  text  does  create 
two  orders  of  elders  ;  and  even  on  that  fuppofition,  have 
(hewn  that  this  constitutes  two  different  orders  of  pallors 
in  every  church,  not  a  feparate  order  of  what  are  called 
lay  elders.  I  will  now  endeavour  to  (hew,  that  the  text 
neither  proves  nor  admits  a  diftin&ion  of  order  among 
the  elders  fpoken  of.  The  oppofition  is  not  between 
ruling  elders  and  preaching  elders,  but  in  the  firft  part 
of  the  verfe,  between  thofe  who  difcharge  the  office  well 
in  genera/,  and  thofe  who  are  particularly  employed  and 
diftinguifhed  for  talents  and  labour  in  that  difficult,  im- 
portant, and  laborious  branch  of  the  office,  the  preaching 
continually  to  large  public  affemblies.  In  every  apofto- 
lical  church,  that  was  prefeclly  organized,  there  was  a 
plurality  of  elders  or  pallors,  of  different  gifts.  Some 
were  diftinguifhed  as  public  fpeakers,  others  as  church 
rulers,  others  for  a  talent  of  private  exhortation,  peculiar- 
ly fitted  to  converfe  with  the  faints*  on  the  ftate  of  their 
fouls,  and  to  pour  the  balm  of  confolation  into  the 
wounded  fpirit.  Now.  each  of  thefe  fullained  the  whole 
of  the  paltoral  office  or  character,  and  might  occalionally 
be  employed  in  any  part  of  it,  while   each   was    ui'ually 


46 

employed  in  that  department  of  his  office,  for  which  his 
talents,  and  his  temper,  fitted  him.  The  advantages 
which  would  thus  accrue  to  the  church,  are  obvious 
and  admirable.  It  enjoyed  this  diverfity  of  gifts,  while 
at  the  fame  time,  if  any  of  the  elders  were  abfent  or 
lhould  die,  or  that  it  could  not  procure,  or  fupport  for 
iome  time,  as  many  elders  or  paftors  as  were  necefTdry, 
any  one  of  them  could  officiate  in  the  peculiar  depart- 
ment of  any  other.  Churches  which  have  not  this 
plurality  of  pallor's,  and  diverfity  of  gifts,  are  not 
aware  of  the  difadvantage  under  which  they  labour. 
At  the  fame  time,  fome  congregations  which  have  a 
plurality  of  paftors,  do  not  feem  to  know  how  to  ufe 
them.  They  do  not  wiTign  their  paftors,  each  the  pe- 
culiar province  for  which  he  is  bell  qualified,  but  each 
ftatedly  labours  in  every  part  of  the  office,  alternately. 
This  plurality  of  elders,  is  rather  fuitcd  to  the  indolence 
of  the  labourer,  than  the  edification  of  the  church. 
This  being  the  cafe,  the  reafon  of  the  injunction  of  the 
text  is  obvious  and  important.  All  luch  elders  are 
worthy  of  "  honourable  maintenance  :"  thofe  who  are 
diftinguiuhed  in  their  office,  have  a  right  to  a  double  por- 
tion ;  efpecially  thofe  who  are  peculiarly  and  ufually 
employed  in  preaching.  This  requires  peculiar,  and 
perhaps  rarer  talents  j  much  more  time,  ftudy,  and  ex- 
pence  to  qualify  them  for  the  office  j  has  much  great- 
er labour  and  fatigue  j  incurs  more  expence,  by  fre- 
quent excurfions  :  expofes  much  more  to  public  cenfure 
and  odium  ;  and  requires  much  more  intenfe  applica- 
tion to  furnifh  the  mind,  fo  as  to  be  a  workman  that 
needeth  not  to  be  afhamed,  rightly  dividing  the  word  of 
truth.  To  difcharge  this  part  of  the  office  in  a  proper 
manner,  requires  a  life  folely  devoted  to  it.  Such  is  my 
view  of  this  text  j  now  to  confirm  it. 

The  word  tranflated  rule,  is  by  no  means  exclufively 
applicable  to  that  department  of  the  paftoral  office  call- 
ed ruling.     Upoisui  is  rather  a  commander*  in  the  field 

*  As  the  word  imperator,  from  fignifying  a  military 
came  to  fignify  a  civil  officer,  fo  this  word  is  ufually  era-' 
ployed  for  a  governor  or  magillrate. 


47 

than  a  prefident  in  an  anembly.  IT^of^a?  would  be  the 
-moll  proper  word  for  the  latter.  Accordingly,  in  the 
Athenian  council  of  500,  the  feven  of  the  Prytanes 
c ho  fen  by  lot  to  prefide  every  week  were  called  wgwSgai  ; 
and  the  piefident  of  the  day  was  called  t?rtrciTtis.  This 
is  a  too  peaceful  and  inactive  office  to  give  a  name  to 
Chrilt's  officers.  I  know  not  that  they  are  ever  fo  call- 
ed io  the  New  Teilament,  though  they  early  affumed 
this  title.  But  tt^ois-sj  is  a  word  which  fully  expreffes 
their  arduous,  dangerous,  and  honourable  office.  It 
fignifies  an  officer  who  goes  before  his  men,  and  Hands 
jn  the  front  of  the  battle.  He  encourages  them  by  his 
example  and  exhortations,  and  leads  them  into  a&ion. 
Officers  have  the  command  and  the  care  of  the  army  j 
train  and  discipline  the  foldiers  ;  and  keep  them  to  their 
duty.  They  take  care  to  fupply  them  with  provifions, 
and  prepare  them  for  battle,  by  military  fpeeches.  Such 
an  officer  is  the  eider  in  the  church  of  Chrilt.  Like  a 
military  officer,  he  trains  and  difciplines  his  troops  ; 
fupplies  them  with  wholefome  provifions  ;  rules  them 
by  the  laws  of  Chrift  •,  infhucts  them  in  the  will  of 
their  king  5  and  prepares  them  for  Battle  by  his  public 
preaching.  I  apprehend,  then,  that  the  word  ^ass^rs? 
here,  is  not  to  be  referred  exclufively,  to  any  one  part 
of  the  pafioral  office,  but  to  the  office  in  general.  It 
means  the  elders  who  discharge  in  an  eminent  manner, 
the  duty  of  an  officer  in  the  army  of  Chrift,  and 
preaching  is  as  effential  a  part  of  this,  as  ruling.  That 
jr^esftf?  refers  to  the  office  in  general,  is  farther  evi- 
den:,  from  1  Theff.  v.  '2.  where  the  fame  perfons  who 
are  faid  to  labour  among  them,  and  to  admonifh  them, 
are  called  alfo  7r?ai«-#f«s»'«$.  Indeed  I  am  afto;">iihed 
that  any  perfon  who  has  ever  looked  into  the  Greek 
Teftament  ihould  think  that  the  tt^^mth  were  an 
order  inferior  to  preachers.  There  is  not  a  higher 
word  to  denote  paftor,  in  all  the  word  of  God.  They 
ere  Chriit's  military  officers  Accordingly  they  are 
called  dfo.  Heb.  xiii-  17.  yyaftmi  or  military  leaders. 
Agreeably  to  this  we  find,  that  when  one  of  the  el- 
ders began  to  be  diitinguilhed  above  his  coileigues,  he 
■eftlnned  thefe  very  appellations  as  the  moil  honourable. 


48 

He  exclufively  Tporopriated  to  himfelf.  x£»;?»«  and 
H7»,«f»«?  as  well  as  i/riaco-m  or  biiliop.  But  efpecially, 
can  there  be  any  thing  more  unfit  to  the  character  of 
military  officers,  than  an  otder  of  lay-eldevs  ? 


My  fenfe  of  the  paffage  may  be  illustrated  by  a 
fimile.  "  Let  the  kings  who  rule  well  be  accounted 
worthy  of  double  honour,  efpecially  thofe  who  diiiin- 
guifh  themfelves  as  the  protectors  of  religious  liberty." 
Here  ruling  well,  refers  to  the  whole  kingly  office,  and 
the  word  "  efpecially,"  diftinguifhes  a  particuinr  de- 
partment of  the  duty  of  a  king.  "  Let  virtuous  and  d:t- 
tinguifhed  legislators,  be  etteemed  worthy  of  double 
honour,  efpecially  thofe  who  labour  for  the  abolition 
of  the  flave  trade.'"  Who  would  infer  from  this,  that 
members  of  parliament  were  each  confined  to  a  par- 
ticular department  ?  E<ch  member  has  a  right  to 
fpeak  and  vote  up  ni  every  fubjecl,  though  his  time 
and  talents  may  be  chiefly  employed  on  his  favourite  ob- 
je£L 

Befides,  if  I  am  not  greatly  miftaken,  grammar  re- 
quires that  o;  fitTTHA'VTts  have  n-^oirurtg  trgw/Si/rfgw,  and  not 
merely  TrptcZvTipoi.,  for  its  antecedent.  1  he  phrafeology 
IS  e;  xuXui  Trpa-faTi;  TPieZvTtPtl,  and  not  »i  Tpttr/Swrtpw  et 
kxXms  7r£cira>n;.      But  common   fenle    requires   that    the 

5J-gO£«-»T:;   7TPl(F(ivT£POt   include   the   KOTlUVTic   i»  Aoy.V  K.Ui  Cldxe- 

xxX:x.  If  a  general,  after  a  viclory  would  write  thus 
to  the  fecretarv  at  war.  "  The  officers  merit  the  high- 
eft  praife,  efpecially  the  general  officers,"  he  would 
write  fenfe.  But  how  ridiculous  would  it  be  to  lay, 
"  the  fubaltern  officers  meiit  the  highell  praife,  efpe- 
cially the  general  officers."  In  the  firir  inftance,  the 
word  "  officers"  includes  the  general  officers  .  but 
in  the  fecond  the  general  officers  are  not  included 
among  the  fubaltern  officers  Now,  this  is  ex- 
actly what  the  prelbyterian  interpret. .tion  ol  this 
text  makes  the  apoflles  fay,  "  Let  ruling  ciders  be 
counted  worthy  of  honour,  efpecially  the  preaching  ci- 
ders." M.--:A.-«  is  properly  uled,  when  a  part  is  diftin- 
guifhed  out  of  the   whole  j    or  one  out   of  a  number. 


49 

Compare  this  paffage  with  2  Tim.  iv.  1 3,  '"  Bring  with 
vou  the  cloak,  and  the  books,  efpecially  the  parch- 
ments." Here,  the  generic  word  books  includes  the 
parchments,  as  a  particular  lort  of  the  books  which  he 
hA  defired  him  to  bring.  But  how  ridiculous  would 
it  have  been  to  have  faid,  "  Bring  the  cloak,  efpecially 
the  parchments." 

Thus  have  I  examined  the  meaning  of  this  much  dis- 
puted portion  of  fciipture.  I  have  fir  it  endeavoured  to 
fhew.  that  granting  prelbytenans  their  own  interpreta- 
tion of  this  text,  and  that  it  fully  elfablilhes  an  order  of 
lay-elders,  or  an  order  of  rulers  in  the  church,  who  arc 
not  parlors,  that  even  this  did  not  give  a  church  feffion 
any  authority  to  judge  in  all  matters  for  the  church  or 
congregation.  Even  in  this  cafe,  the  whole  church 
fliould  judge,  and  thofe  officers  carry  the  refult  into  ex- 
ecution. Again,  that  granting  the  exclufive  manage- 
ment of  church  dft.urs  to  the  <ellion,  gdVe  it  no  authori- 
ty to  legifltte,  as  the  whole  church,  or  the  united  voice 
of  all  the  churches  upon  earth,  have  no  light  to  make 
the  {lighten  alteration,  amendment,  or  addition  with  re- 
fpeft  to  the  laws  of  Chrill's  church.  Further  that 
granting  a  diftinction  of  order  in  elders  to  be  eftabiilhed 
from  this  verfe.  it  would  m  ke  two  orders  of  pallors, 
and  not  *  diftintt  order  of  lay-elders.  And,  laftly,  that 
a  diilinclion  of  order  of  any  kind,  is  neither  neceffary, 
probable,  nor  poffible,  from  this  vtrfe.  It  constitutes, 
indetd,  a  plurality  of  pallors,  in  every  perfeclly  organ- 
ized church,  who,  being  or  different  gifts,  fhoulci  be 
ufually  emplo>ed  in  the  department  belt  fuited  to  each  j 
th  t  there  ihould  be  a  gradation  of  fupport  iccording  to 
talents,  zeal,  and  diiigente  ;  and  that  the  higheft  is  due 
to  thofe  who  are  diftmguifhedy&r  labouring  in  word  and 
doElrine.  This  plurality  or  elders  or  pallors  in  a  church, 
is  c<lled  (1  Tim.  iv.  14  \  the  preibytery  01  elderfhip. 
The  modern  fignification  of  the  word  preibytery,  as  con- 
firming ot  the  miniflers  and  repreftntative  lay  elders  of 
the  congregations  of  a  whole  dill  lift,  is  not  known 
in  fcripture,  nor  in  all  the  fir  ft  ages   of  Chnftianity.* 

*  ChryfoltoT  fuppofed  the  pnlbyttry  l'poken  of,  1   fim. 
iv.  14,  to  have  been  a  lynod  of  biihops.    To  what  extra- 
E 


58  m- 

will. men  run,  who  g.ve  themfelves  up  to  a  F^Hfeft 
3j|€  their  opinions  troin  their  led,  and  not  from'^BB^ 


B 


J*-eh 


CHAPTER  VI. 
OF  INDEPENDENCY. 


I  have  an  objection  againft  impofing  names  of  human 
invention  upon  the  things  oj  the  Sp'rit.  When  1  ufe  the 
words  independency  and  independents,  for  tnat  form,  of 
church  government,  inltituted  by  the  apoftles,  and  thofe 
who  now  embrace  it,  I  would  be  understood  to  do  it, 
not  of  choice,  but  of  nectffity.  The  difcipies  of  Chrift 
are  properly  called  Cbnjiians,  /hints,  or  brethren,  and 
an  hffembly  of  thofe,  lor  the  purpofe  of  enjoying  the  or- 
dinances of  Chrill,  according  to  his  appointment,  is  cal- 
led a  church.  Now,  thele  are  the  words  I  would  al- 
ways wifh  to  ufe  to  denote  tfte  fame  ejects  ;  but  it  has 
happened  that  fome  of  thtm  have  been  fo  abufed  and 
proitituted  to  other  fignificntions.  that  it  is  impoflible  to 
ufe  thefe  plain  fcripture  words  without  obfeurity.  l'here 
is  now  the  church  of  Rome,  the  cLurcli  of  England, 
the  church  of  Scotland,  the  church  of  Secrflion,  &c. 
&c.  &c  In  fpeaking  therefore  of  a  church  formed  on 
the  model  of  toe  apoftolical  churches,  we  are  obliged  to 
ca  1  it  an  independent  church,  to  diltir.guilh  it  ftom  the 
otbeis,  which  have  ufurped  the  name.  Still,  however, 
we  ufe  this,  not  as  the  name  of  Chriit's  church,  but  of 
the  particular  mode  of  the  government  of  an  apoftolical 
church,  to  mark,  its  diitindtive  feature.  The  apoflles 
had  no  occafion  to  ufe  this,  or  any  other  word  of  the 
tame  nature,  for  the  fame  purunle.  becaufe  no  different 
form  of  government  had  been  erected.     It   is  obvious, 


then. 


rt 


then,  that  this  ufe  of  {he  word  independency,  is  very  dif- 
ferent from   Gacraaaent*   euchariit%  altar,   clergy,    and   a 
rm^ti'uderaJjtbeV  fuch    names,  allien    the   wifdom    of 
-men  has  imjroed  uporfMie  ordinances  of  God. 

That  the  government  of  Cbrift's  appointment,  is  what 
is  called  independent,  is  obvious  from  the  rule  which  he 
gave  for  the  fettling  of  private  offences  among  his  dif- 
ciples,  M  at.  xviii.  t  5, — 18.  "Moreover,  if  thy  bro- 
"  tber  fhali  trefpafs  agninlt  thee,  go  and  tell  him  his 
*'  fault,  between  thee  and  him  alone  ;  if  he  fhall  hear 
"  thee,  thou  haft  gained  thy  brother.  But  if  he  will 
"  not  hear  thee,  then  take  with  thee  one  or  two  more, 
"  that  in  the  mouth  of  one  or  two  witneffes,  every  word 
"  may  be  eftabliftied.  And  if  he  fhall  neglect  to  hear 
"  them,  tell  it  unto  the  church  :  but  if  he  neglett  to 
V  hear  the  church,  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  an  heathen, 
"  roan,  and  a  publican."  Here  the  lift  appeal  is  to  the 
church.  He  does  not  fay,  if  he  does  nci  *ear  the  church, 
take  him  to  the  prefbytery,  and  if  he  does  not  hear  the 
prefbytery,  take  him  to  the  fynod,  &c.  but  if  he  hear 
not  the  church,  "  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  an  heathen 
man,  and  a  publican.1'  I  know,  indeed,  that  various 
fubterfuges  have  been  invented  to  evade  the  force  of 
this  plain  fcripture.  Jivery  feci  has  attempted  to  find 
its  own  diicipline  in  this  palfage,  whilft  individuals,  to 
apologize  for  what  they  cannot  juftify,  have  attempted 
to  darken  its  meaning  fo  as  to  make  it  of  no  practical 
ufe.  The  multiplicity  of  interpretations,  in  the  opinion 
of  Dr.  Stillingfleet,  is  an  argument  to  prove  that  it  is 
totally  inexplicable  ;  in  my  opinion  it  proves  only  what 
is  proved  by  the  variety  of  fentiments  on  every  other 
point  in  fcriprure,  the  perverfity,  the  felfifhnefs,  or  the 
prejudice  of  profefling  Chriftians.  What  !  has  the  Lord 
Jefus  given  a  precept,  in  a  cafe  of  fuch  importance,  and 
of  fuch  frequent  occurrence,  which  cannot  be  under- 
ftood  ?  Did  he  ui(h  to  be,  or  could  he  not  avoid  being 
unintelligible  ?  Muft  the  Holy  One  of  Ifrael  fpeak  with 
the  darknefs  and  evifion  of  an  heathen  oricle  ?  If  he 
did  not  mean  to  be  underftood,  why  did  he  lpe.^k  ?  if  he 
meant  to  be  underftood,  why  did  he  not  fpeak  in  intel-' 


52 

ligiblc  language  I  If  we  cannot  find  out  who  are  the  di- 
▼inelv  appointed  arbitrators  of  our  differences,  he  might 
as  well  have  faid  nothing  on  the  iubject.  What  an  in- 
fult  upon  the  Holy  Ghoft  to  reprtitnt  his  language  to 
be  lo  vague  *nd  indeterminate,  thst  it  cannot  be  under- 
ftood  ?  Chrift  has  faid,  "  tell  it  to  the  church  j"  is  there 
no  way  of  coming  at  his  meaning  >  His  the  word  church 
no  determinate  meaning  in  the  New  Teliament  ?  Kut 
Dr.  Scillingflcet  is  of  opinion,  that  if  the  difcipline  Chrift 
has  appointed,  be  executed,  it  is  not  material  by  whom. 
Is  it  then  the  fame  thing,  whether  a  law  be  enacted  by 
the  lawfully  appointed  legiflators,  or  by  any  other  body 
of  felf  confticuted  men  >  or  that  a  criminal  be  tried  by 
»  lawful  judge  and  jury,  or  bv  men  who  affume  the  right 
of  judgment,  without  the  countenance  of  lawful  autho- 
rity ?  If  Chrift  has  appointed  any  particular  referees,  it 
is  as  really  a  breach  of  his  injunction  to  appoint  ai.y 
other,  as  it  would  be  totally  to  neglect  that  inftance  of 
difcipline.  But  is  there  any  native  neceffary  obfcurity 
in  the  precept,  arifing  fiom  the  promifcuous  ufe  of  the 
word  church,  in  the  New  Teftament  >  If  it  is  now  in 
any  meafure  obfeure.  it  has  been  rendered  fo,  not  from 
the  ambiguity  of  the  fcriptute  ufe  of  the  word,  but  from 
its  prolHtuted  application  in  modern  acceptation,  and 
the  fophistry.  and  fubtleties  of  interefted,  prejudiced,  or 
bigotted  men  :  we  find  no  difficulty  in  the  p  iTige  until 
we  hear  the  forced  explanations  of  it  given  by  contro- 
vertifts,  and  our  mind  begins  to  be  diffracted,  and  the 
fubje'et  obfeured  by  the  fmoke  of  their  unhallowed 
fires. 

I  lay  it  down,  then,  as  an  axiom,  that  Chrift  meant 
fome  determinate  thing  by  the  word  church,  and  that 
there  mutt  be  iufficient  evidence  in  the  New  Teftament 
to  lead  the  humble,  teachable  inquirer  into  that  mean- 
ing. Chrift  muft  have  fpoken  intelligible  language. 
No  ^,  to  inveitigate  the  fenpture-ufe  of  the  word 
church. 

In  every  language  there  are  two  different  procefTes  re- 
cognifed,  which  affect  the  fignification  of  words,  appro- 


53 

priation  and  extenfion.     The  one  confines   them   to  a 
part  of  their  original  territories,  the  other  extends  them 
a  little  beyond   their   natural   limits.       This   is    not    pe- 
culiar to  the  language  of  icripture,    but   is    practiled    in 
treating  of  all  the  arts  and  fciences,  and  the  whole  bufi- 
nefs  of  life.      Thus  the  word  angel   literally    figmfies   a 
mefTenger,  and  is  not  naturally  confined  to  any    delcrip- 
tion  ot  mefTengers.      But  the   Bible  hath   in   a   manner 
appropriated  that  word  to  denote   an   order  of  oeings, 
whole  employment  is   that   of   meffengers  of  the   Molt 
High,  lent  forth  to  minilier  to   the    heirs   of   falvation. 
And  though  it  may  occafionally,  even  in  fcripture,  claim 
its  natural  rights,  being  lometimes  ufed   lor   other   mef- 
fengers, yet  it  is  the  appropriated  name  of  that  order  of 
beings  called  angels.      The   fame   may    be   f  tid   of  the 
words  apojlle,  eider,  bijhop,  &.c.   Ibmetimes  they  are  ap- 
propriated   upon    particular    fubje&s    or     departments, 
while  chey  enjoy  the    hill   extent    of   their   fignification 
upon  others  ;  and  fom-times  the  fame  word  is  differently 
appropriated  upon  different  luojecls.      Thus,   while  the' 
words  an#el.  apoitie,  &c.  are  ufually  confined  to  a  par- 
ticular province  in  fcripture,  rhey   have    unbounded   li- 
cence in  profane  authors    of  the   lame   date  ;    and   thus 
when  men  ufe  the  word  minifter.  converting  upon   poli- 
tical fubjt&s,  it  is   immediately    underftood   that  they 
mean  the  firft  minifter  of  ftate.     But  if  they   are  con- 
verfing  on  religion,  it  is  as  readily  underftood  to  be  the 
minijier  oj the  congregation      On  the  other  hand,  fome- 
times  a  word  will  come  through  time  to  exceed  its  na- 
tural ooundaries,  and  be  extended  to  include  ideas  not 
neceffirily,  nor  naturally  inherent  in  it.      Thus,  wgortnu 
liter  ally  fignifies  to  vote  bv  holding  up  the   hand,    and 
was  ufed  in  the  popular  affemblies  of  Athens  in  contra- 
difti  icYion  to  the  vote  by  fcrutiny,  which   was   denoted 
by  -J;n?ify<>  from   •v^a*   the  pebble  ufed  by  the   voters. 
But  in  an  advanced  period  of  the  hi'lory  of  this  word, 
we  find  that  it  fometimes  dropped  the  principal  idea  al- 
together, and  was  extended  to  denote   election   in   any 
manner,  and  even  the  conferring   of  an   office,   not    by 
election  but  individual  nomination.      Oar   language   has 
iecognifed  the  fame  abufive  principle,  in  the  words  mart- 
£3 


54 

midwife,  head-pleurify.  &.c.  Now,  to  apply  this  rea- 
soning to  the  point  in  dilute.  We  are  to  enquire  what 
ikhXwix  literally  fignifies  ;  what  it  was  oiiginally  ■  pplied 
to  ;  what  it  came  to  be  applied  to  in  the  procel«>  of  its 
hiftory;  what  is  its  ufe  in  other  inltances  in  Scripture  •, 
how  it  is  uled  in  profane  authorsof  the  lame  date  ;  whe- 
ther in  the  New  Teilaraent,  it  hath  been  appropriated, 
or  extended  j  and  if  appropriated,  to  what  ;  Pioceednig 
thus,  we  (hall  find,  that  in  the  New  Tellament  it  is  in- 
variably ufed,  ei'her  for  an  individual  congregation,  or 
the  whole  community  of  Chrilhans. 

I,i«a.»ff-4«  literally  fignifies  an  afftmbly  called  out  from 
others,  and  is  ufed  among  the  Greeks,  particularly    the 
Atl  er.ians,  tot  their   popular    affembhes   furr.mom-d    by 
their  chief  magiitrate,  and  in   winch    none   but   awzttis 
had  a  right  to  fit.      By  inherent  power   it    may    be    ap- 
plied to  any  body  of  men  called  out,   and   aJJembUd   in 
ene  place.      If  ever  it  lofes  the  ideas  of  calling   out   and 
ajjimb/ing,  it  loies  its  principal  features,   and   its   primi- 
tive ule.      I  will  not  fay,  that  by   the  operation  ot  the 
abufive  principle  1  have   defcribed,    it   might    not    have 
.  come  to  lofe  even  boih,  after  a  length  of  time   from   its 
firlt  introduction  j  but  this  I  fav,  that  i  no  where  find  it 
in  profane  writers,  nor  in  the  fcriptures  fpeaking  of  civil 
affaiis.  to  have   loll   either,  but   efpecially    the    latter. 
Nor  will  1  be  driven  from  my    pofition   by    the   ufe   of 
this  word  in  the  19th  chapter  of  Adls.     That  affembly, 
however  tumultuous,    irregular,    and   unlawful   it   may 
have  been,  was  a  meeting  0/  the  c-iti%em  called  together 
by  the  filverlnsiths.   The  craftsmen  were  called  together, 
(verie  25,)  by  Demetrius,  who,  uflaroed  by  his  Ipeech, 
burft  out  into  intemperate  acclamations  to  their  goddels 
Diana       The  reit  of  the  citizens   were  roufed    and   af- 
iemblcd  by  their  noife,  and  adopting  their  zeal,  though 
mar.y  of  them  knew  not  the  caufe,  they  rulhed  into  the 
theatre — the  very  place  of  public  deliberation.   Though, 
then,  it  was  an  irregular,  lawlefs   aiiembly,   it   was   no- 
thing akin  to  an  Englilh  mob,  but  rather  like  a  parlia- 
ment affembling    being  furcmoned,  not  by  the  king   but 
by   fome  incendiary    ar^ong   themtelves.      Still   more 


55 

ftrongly  may  it  be  affirmed,  that  it  is  no  where  ufed  by 
prof  tne  writers  to  denote  any  body  or  men,  but  in  their 
aJJ'i  ml/led  capacity  they  are  called,  iKKtonx  only  as.  eJJ't ta- 
bled. 

Such   being  the  origin   and  ufe  of  this   word  among 
the   Greeks,    10    what    may   it    be   legitimately    applied 
when  uicd  in  facred  things  ?      It    m*y  iigmfy  any  a  film- 
b/y  called  out  t'rom  the  world,  and  united  in  L'kr Jl       A- 
greeably  to  this,   whenever   it   is  ufed  in  Scripture  in  a 
facied  lenle,  that  is,  as  applicable   to    believers,  we  find 
that  it  is  invariably  appropriated  to  an  individual  nlTcm- 
blv  of  Cnnitians.  meeting   to    enjoy    the    ordinances  of 
Chrilt,  or  the  Chriftian  community  in  general.      When- 
ever  the   apoltles   made   a   number  of  converts   in   any 
place,  they  ieparated  them    from  the   congregation,  by 
forming   them    into   an    wxA««-<»   or    church.      And  juit 
asi  n  the  Athenian  affemblies  none  but  citizens  could  (it 
or  vote,  fo  none  but  the  citizens  of  the    ne>v  Jerulaiem 
were  allowed  to  join  themlelves  to  this  company.    As  in 
the  parliament    many  may    be    prtfent  to    hear,  though 
none    but   fenators  fpcnk   or    vote-,     fo   in    a    crutch  of 
Chrilt,  many  are  prefent  to  hear  the  gofpel  of  falvation, 
but    none    are    admitted  as   members    of    the    ikkXyio-hc 
but  thofe   who    are   firlt    by  that  gofpel    make    citizens 
of  heaven.      But   with   equal   propriety  may  this   word 
be  applied  either  to   all  the    Chrhtians  on  earth,  or  all 
both  in  heaven  and  earth,  as  affembled   in   Jefus.      Nor 
does  this  application  tiretch  it  a  whit  beyond  its  natural 
and   intrinfic    meaning.     It  is   as   literally  and  as   truly 
applied  to  the  one   as   to   the    other.      All  the  faints  on 
earth,  all  the  faints  in  heaven,  are  affembled  in    him,  as 
really  as  the  branches  of  a  vine  are  united  in  the  trunk, 
the    Hones  of  a   building   upon   the   foundation,  or    the 
members  of  the  body  with  the  head.    With  the  fhicleft 
truth  all  Chriihin"  may  be  faid  to  be  already    "  in  hea- 
venly places    in    Chrilt."      This   double    application    of 
the  word   is    neither   foreign   nor    forced,  incorrect   nor 
indiltinit.      When    it    is   ufed   indefinitely,  it  tpplies  to 
the  community  of  believers    affembled  in  Cnrilt  :     vvheo. 
it  is  ufed  with  lelpeft  to  an  individual  church,  which  is 
its  molt  general  application,  the  context,  or  the  nature 


5<S 

of  the  circumftances,  gives  fufficient  intimation.  Let 
any  one  tike  tie  trouble  to  tun  over  ail  the  places 
where  it  i»  found  in  the  New  Teltament,  and  I  will  be 
bol^i  to  fay,  he  will  not  find  a  (ingie  text,  which  will 
not  faiily  explain  on  this  hypothetic.  The  caies  where 
it  may  occur  in  the  civil  or  unappropriated  fenle,  are 
riot  accompanied  with  the  fmalleit  difficulty,  the  con- 
text, or  a  note  of  appropriation,  as  "  church  of  Chrilt," 
&c.  lutficiently  markirg  the  difference  Thole  who, 
from  this  circumttance,  woitld  argue  the  impolTibiiify 
of  alcertaining  the  meaning  of  the  word  church  in  Mat. 
xviii.  17.  and  tile  where,  will  find  the  lame  difficulty 
in  the  words  apottles,  angel,  and  innumerable  others. 
Indeed  the  admiilion  of  this  principle,  and  I  fee  it  ad- 
mitted, and  acted  upon,  by  fome  very  ingenious  men, 
would  involve,  in  impenetrable  darknefs.  the  cieareft 
point  in  theology.  If  it  be  maintained,  that  the  mean- 
ing of  a  word  lb  important,  io  frequently  ufed  in  the 
epiltles,  cou.d  not  be  afcertained,  why  ihould  not  this 
be  the  cafe  with  others  ?  Were  fuch  a  principle  eita- 
blifhed  in  criticifm,  1  have  no  hefitation  in  faying,  that 
there  is  not  an  ancient  aut'or  could  be  undtrliood  ;  that 
there  is  not  a  paffage  fo  clear  in  any  author,  in  any  lan- 
guage, upon  any  lubjeft,  which  could  not  be  Io  perltx- 
ed  by  the  ingenuity  of  a  fophilt,  that  the  ableft  critic 
could  r.ot  unravel  it.  Critics  would  be  afhamed  to  rea- 
lon  thus  on  a  pafTage  in  Homer  or  Sophocles.  Grant 
only  to  the  infpned  writers,  what  will  be  granted  to  all 
—that  they  had  a  meaning  in  their  words,  and  wrote 
to  be  understood,  and  it  will  be  our  fault  it  we  cannot 
underltand  them. 

Having  Hated  the  literal  meaning,  the  pn  fane  and 
facred  application  of  the  woid  ixy-X/ic-iec  let  us  next 
examine  tne  claims  of  its  modern  *  icceptations.  It  is 
quite  a  cameleon.  It  is  as  virious  in  its  meaning,  as 
the  necefiuies  of  each  party  require.  Sometimes  it  is  a 
church  fellion  :  foinetimes  in  individual  church  ;  fome- 
times  a  ci  tTical  prcfbvtery  j  fomctimes  a  fynod  ,  lome- 
times  a  general   afiembly  ;    fometimes   church    ruiersj 

*  I  call  them  modern,  becaufc  they  are  later  than  the 
New  Tcilament. 


*7 


o 


fometimes  all  the  churches  of  a  province  or  kingdom. 
Truly,  jf  the  Scripture  gives  ground  for  all  fhr<e,  it 
is  more  dark  nn>i  pirplexing  than  was  ever  an  anfwer  of 
the  Sybil.  Is  not  the  bare  ltatement  a  refutation  of 
the  tact  ?  and  the  fuppofition  a  calumny  on  the  oracles 
of  God  ?  But  the  practice  of  prefbv  etians  themfelves, 
is  a  complete  refutation  of  this  hypotheSis.  They  do 
not  (peak  piomilcuouily  of  all  their  affemblies  by  the 
name  chinch,  but  have  a  distinct  name  for  each,  as  the 
congregation,  the  ielTion,  the  prrfbyte-y,  the  fynod,  &c.  . 
Now,  if  each  order  of  thefe  courts  be  a  church,  as  well 
as  each  congregation,  and  the  collective  congregations, 
why  do  they  not  fpeak  of  them  by  the  fcripture  name  ? 
Why  have  they  impofed  upon  them  names  of  their  own 
invention  ?  Evidently  becaufe  they  would  otherwife  be 
unintelligible.  If  one  of  their  writers  on  church  dif- 
cipline  was  to  fpeak  of  all  their  affemblies  by  the  name 
church,  without  additional  marks  of  distinction,  his  rea- 
ders would  not  understand  him  :  yet  this  is  the  very  in- 
accuracy they  charge  upon  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. They  fuppofe  them  to  fpeak  promifcuoufly  of 
the  greateft  variety  of  fubordinate  courts,  as  well  as  af- 
femblies of  a  different  na-yre,  by  the  fame  name,  with- 
out any  mark  of  distinction  to  guide  the  reader.  Now, 
I  think  this  is  a  very  fair  criterion  j  fcripture  ordinances 
Should  be  fufficiently  intelligible  by  fcripture  names, 
without  the  ufe  of  any  other.  I  believe  it  will  be  found 
a  very  juft  conclusion,  that  the  injlitutims  which  have 
not  a  name  in  fcripture^  have  not  an  exjlence  in  fcripture. 
Let  p  cfbyterians,  then,  ufe  nothing  but  the  Scripture 
names,  and  their  doctrine  of  fubordinate  courts  will  be 
jargon.  By  their  unnatural  extenfion  of  this  word, 
they  have  taken  it  in  modern  ufe  from  tbit  which  alone 
deierves  it — the  individual  affemblies  of  the  faints.  Let 
us  fuppofe,  then^-that  m.x.M<ri*  might  have  been  legi- 
timately appropriated  to  >ienote  any  one  of  thefe  affem- 
blies, this  appropriation  will  take  it  from  alt  the  re  St. 
If  a  feiTion  is  a  church,  then  a  congregation  cannot  be 
a  church  ;  if  either  of  thef<-  be  a  church,  then  a  piffby- 
tery  cannot,  without  cor  fufiop,  be  ufually  fo  denomina- 
ted j  and  if  a  preStnrery  is  a  church,  then  it  will  take 
that  name  from  all  inferior  and  fuperior  courts.  .  Now, 


53- 

if  thefe  courts  be  fcriptural,  let  their  advocates  produce 
their  diitincl  fcriptural  names.  No  word  can  have  two 
appiopnate  meanings  .upon  the  fame  fubjed  j  ixxtoriot 
may  be  a  civil  affembly  and-  appropriated  alfu  to  a  reli- 
gious affembly  j  but  in  neither  civil  nor  religious  mat- 
ters can  it  be  appropriated  as  the  diftinclive  name  of 
two  different  alTembiies,  the  one  fubordinate  to  the  other. 
It  may  denote  a  particular  affembly  of  faints,  and  the 
community  of  Christians  affembled  in  Jefus  ;  but  with- 
out confulion,  it  cmnot  be  ufed  as  the  appropriated 
name  of  a  particular  and  general  affembly  of  the  fame 
fort.  This  is  clear  from  the  names  of  civil  courts. 
Though  fome  of  thefe  be  fuch  as  to  be  literally  applica- 
ble to  all,  yet  they  are  not  fo  appropriated.  Thus  fef- 
fions.  affizes,  &c.  Thus  alfo  in  the  church  of  England, 
though  each  of  the  orders  are  called  clergymen,  yet  for 
this  very  reafon  it  could  not  be  the  appropria:ed  di- 
ftinftive  name  of  any  one  of  them.  There  is  curate, 
re£lor,  bifhop,  &c.  For  the  fame  reafon,  though  bifhop 
was  the  common  name  of  all  prefbyteis  originally,  yet 
when  it  was  appropriated  to  one  of  the  number,  it  was 
taken  from  all  the  reft.  If,  then,  the  word  church  be  gene- 
rally applicable  to  fuch  a  vai .« ty  of  affemblies,  each  af- 
fembly muft  have  a  diftindlive  name  belides ;  to  produce 
which  out  of  Scripture,  will  be  rather  an  arduous  talk. 
Befides,  in  fpeaking  particularly  of  each  of  thefe  affem- 
blies, the  common  name  could  not  be  ufed,  any  more  than 
the  name  clergyman  would  diltinguifti  a  biihop  from  a 
prefbyter.  When  our  Lord  fays,  then  "  tell  it  to  the 
church  ;"  if  he  intends  prefbyterian  ecclefiaftical  courts, 
to  which  does  he  refer  ?  It  to  the  feffion,  then  all  high- 
er appeals  are  cut  off;  for  if  the  offending  brother  will 
not  "  hear  the  church,  let  him  be  as  an  heathen  man 
and  a  publican  ;"  if  it  means  a  general  fynod  or  affem- 
bly, then  al'  inferior  courts  are  cut  off.  But  if  church 
be  alfo  the  fcripture  name  of  an  individual  affembly  of 
faints,  confiding  of  pallors  and  church  members,  is  not 
the  obfcunty  flill  increafrd  Whether  mult  the  congre- 
gation or  the  leffion  be  appealed  to  ? 

I  have  hitherto   combated  this  multifarious  applica- 
tion of  the  word,  upon  the  fuppofition  that  it  was  equal- 


59 

ly  proper  to  any  one  of  the  things  fignified.  But  I  hav* 
objections  againit  the  propriety  of  applying  it  either  to 
church  rulers,  or  the  afibciated  churches  of  a  province 
or  kingdom,  both  from  the  meaning  of  the  word  and  its 
original  application,  as  well  as  its  ule  in  Scripture.  Ac- 
cording to  the  intriniic  ideas  contained  in  &**A>jo-«s 
the  churches  of  a  province  or  kingdom  could  not  be  fo 
called,  becaufe  they  are  never  affembled.  Now  this 
would  be  an  etffemb/y,  never  affembled.  Should  it  be  faid 
that  they  are  prefent  in  their  representatives,  as  the 
nation  may  be  faid  to  be  prefent  in  the  parliament,  (be- 
fides  that  this  is  too  figurative  for  a  diftinclive  or  ap- 
propriated name.)  then  private  individuals  can  no  more 
be  called  members  of  the  church  of  Scotland,  &c.  than 
private  fu'ojects  members  of  parliament.  N<-ne  are 
members  ot  ar  aflembly,  but  thofe  actually  poflefling  a 
right  to  fit  in  that  aflembly.  A  national  or  provincial 
church,  in  this  view,  confifts  of  church  rulers  alone,  or 
rather  a  feleciion  of  church  rulers.  Befides,  church 
is  uled  in  Icripture,  according  to  its  literal  fignification, 
for  an  aflembly  of  faints  aSfuaiiy  aflembled  j  it  would 
not  therefore  be  ufed  in  fuch  a  ioofe  fenfe  in  the  firft 
ftages  of  its  hiitory.  Words  may  come  to  lofe  their 
leading  idea,  but  ir  is  always  by  the  operation  of  time 
and  change  of  circumflances.  Add  to  this,  that  the 
Greeks  did  not  ufe  it  for  reprefentative  afltmblies  ; 
but  aiiVmbiies  in  which  all  the  citizens  had  a  right  to 
be  prefent.  None  were  reprefented  but  the  members 
who  compofed  the  aflembly.  Children,  females,  and 
flavcs  were  not  reprefented.  This  laft  objection  lies 
equally  againit  church  rulers  being  at  any  time  exclu- 
fively  called  the  church.  EkkMo-hi  was  a  popular  af- 
fembly.  diflinguiihed  from  cvvx.M<rnt  an  aflembly  of  no- 
bles or  fenators.  It  ieems  very  clear  that  this  latter 
would  be  the  moll  appropriate  name  for  a  court  of  church 
rulers  :  1  freely  acknowledge,  that  the  literal  ideas  con- 
tained in  the  v\ord  acxtorta,  might  be  applicable  to  a 
court  of  church  rulers,  out  it  would  be  upon  a  princi- 
ple different  from  its  ufual  application  among  the  Athe- 
nians, as  well  a*,  its  other  acknowledged  applications  in 
Scripture.  A  church  of  Chrtft  is  fo  called,  bec;iutt  it 
coniilts  of  members  called  and  feparated  from  the  world 


60 

by  the  gofpel  of  (Thrift,  and  united  in  the  enjoyment  or. 
his  ordinances.  But  if  a  court  of  church*  ruiers  were 
fo  caLed,  it  would  be  not  becaufe  they  were  tailed  out 
of  the  world,  and  united  in  the  fervice  ot  C!irilt,  but 
calie  i  out  fiom  their  brethren  to  Jegifl.ite  for,  and  go- 
vern them.  Now  iuch  a  ule  of  the  woid  would  be  no- 
thing a  kin  to  the  other.  They  would  not  be  the  fan  e 
word,  though  compufed  of  the  fame  letters.  Between 
the  particular  and  general  ule  of  the  word  church,  the 
leading  ideas  are  comnon  ;  both  are  cdled  out  of  the 
world  by  the  gofpel.  fepara'ed  from  it.  and  afftmbled 
in  Chrilt  But  between  thefe  and  the  word  as  ti/nity- 
ing  church  ruiers,  tnere  is  no  relemolance.  To  appro- 
priate a  word  for  a  double  purpole  upon  the  fame  lub- 
ject,  by  a  procefs  fo  different,  is  altogether  unexanrpU  d. 
Neither  is  this  agreeable  to  the  piinciple  th:it  generally 
operates  in  language, to  extend  and  riiverliiy  the  figi  iti- 
cation  of  words.  They  fire  ufualiy  conecliy  and  am- 
biguoufly  applied  at  furl  j  variety  or  fignification.  grows 
by  abide  and  time,  as  a  facl  i elated  bv  many  indivi- 
duals will  be  known  in  different  countries,  with  a  lofs 
or  addition  of  circumlt  .nces.  Add  to  this,  that  in  a 
new  fcience  or  art,  when  an  author  is  obliged  to  bor- 
row and  appropriate  a  word,  he  doth  fo  generally 
agreeably  to  its  natural  import  and  approved  ufe  in 
the  language  from  which  it  is  tik.cn.  if.  then,  our 
Lord  had  t^ken  ikkXy^iu  to  denote  an  individual  af- 
femb!y  of  faints,  he  wouid  hare  taken  Gwx.\r,<riei  for  a 
court  of  ciiuich  rulers,  if  he  had  inltiiuted  fuch  a 
couit. 

But  w^at  faith  the  fcrip^ure  ?  This  muft  final'y  de- 
cide the  pretenlions  of  thefe  different  claimants.  Is 
there  a  fingie  p  ffage  in  which  this  word  mult  be  ac- 
knowledged to  have  any  of  thofe  fignifications  I  com- 
bat ?  Does  it  occur  in  any  prce  whjre  it  plainly  l tiers 
to  a  court  of  church  rulers,  or  to  a  number  of  chuiches 
under  an  affuciated  government  ?  Are  not  ail  the  pal- 
fages  in  which  it  is  faid  to  be  fo  ufed  as  undecided  as  the 
prtfent  ;  4|jJ  >on  what  principle,  then  ot  lair  critici  m 
can  it  be  argii'  d  ?  If  they  could  produce  any  one  oc- 
currence of  it,  in  wuich  it  mult  incontelhbly  be  fo  un- 


derftood,  tliere  might  be  fome  colour  of  ground  fo  to 
Undcrftand  it  in  others,  though  ufed  with  lefs  perfpicui- 
ty.      Rut  without  ah  acknowledged  foundation,  they  ne- 
ver can  raife  a  fuperftru&UTe.      If  the  word  church  was 
in   any  one   place   explained  to  be   a   reprefentative  ai- 
fembly,  and  an  affociation  of  the   churches  of  a   king- 
dom, they  might  plead  fuch  a  fenfe    here  with    efficacy. 
Eut  if  it  is  never  fo  explained,  never  can  it  be  fo  inter- 
preted here.     On  the  other  hand,  we  can  produce  texts 
innumerable,  where  it  figniiies  an  individual  affembly  of 
f.iints,  and  in  which  our  opponents  muft  and  do  acknow- 
ledge that  it  hath  fuch  a  fignification.     We  can  produce 
a  number  of  paffages  in  which  a  church  of  Chrift  is  ex- 
plained to  confilt  of  the  faints  of  a   particular  church. 
By  what  authority,  then,  can  they  refufe  it  to  have  fuch 
a  fignification  here  ?   There  is  not  the  leaft  intimation 
in  any  part  of  the  New  Teftament  of  a  reprefentative 
government.      Nothing  is  faid  about  a  number  of  church 
rulers  being  felecltd  as  an  ecclefiaftical   council   over  a 
number  of  individual  churches  ;  nor  any  fuch  ufe  of  the 
word    church,    as    including    a    number    of    individual 
churches.     When  the  infpired  writers  fpeak  of  a  fingle 
affembly  of  faints,  they  invariably   call   it  a   church  ; 
when   they    fpeak  of   a   number   of  churches,    or   the 
churches  of  a  province  or  difiricl:.  they  do  not  call  them, 
a  church,  but  churches.     Thus  when  Paul  writes  to  the 
Corinthians,  he  addreffes  the  "  church  of  God  which  is 
at  Corinth  :"  but   when  he  writes  to  the  Galatians,  he 
addreffes  the  churches  of  Galatia.     Thus  alfo  when  the 
church  of  Jerufalem  is  fpoken  of.  it  is  called  a  church  ; 
but    when    the    aggregate  of    the    individual   churches 
of  Judea  and  Samaria  are  fpoken  of,  thty  are  not  call- 
ed the  church  of  Judea,  or  the  church  of  Samaria,  but 
the  churches  of  Judea,   and  the   churches  of  Samaria. 
Thus  alio  the  church  of  Cencbrea,  (Rom.xvi.  i.)  and 
the  churches  of  Achaia  :   the  church  of  Ephefus,   the 
tburcbot  Smyrna,  &c   But  when  they  are  fpoken  of  in 
the  aggregate,  it  is  the  feven  churches  of  Alia,  not  the 
church  of  Ana,  Rev.  i.  4.  and  ii.  1.  &c.       1  know   in- 
deed that  with  refpeft  to  Jerufalem  and    Cot  in:  h,  it  is 
alleged  that  the  faints  in  thofe  cities  muft  have  been  too 
numerous  to  have  affembled  in  one  place.       But  I  need 
F 


62 

not  take  up  my  time  in  (hewing  how  or  where  they 
might  nvTemble,  or  in  ascertaining  their  numbers.  They 
are  not  more  numerous  then  I  wilh  them  to  have  been  j 
and  the  icripture  itfelf  refutes  the  objection  in  both  in- 
ftances.  Acls  ii.  44.  1  Cor.  v.  4.  and  xi.  18.  In  thefe 
paiT  .  js  they  are  exprefsly  (hewn  to  have  met  in  the 
lame  place. 

But  if  there  were  really  any  ambiguity  in  Mat  xviii. 
17.  can  there  be  a  better  way  of  afcei tuning  truth  than 
by  referring  to  the  ufe  of  it  in  the  writings  of  the  New 
Terlament  of  a  later  date,  thus  comparing  Spiritual 
things  with  fpiritual  ?  Can  there  be  a  better  commen- 
tary on  the  gcfpels,  than  the  epiftles  f  If  any  thing  is 
not  fully  explained,  but  hinted  at,  by  Chrift,  where  will 
we  go  for  farther  information,  but  to  the  apoftles,  who 
were  to  fini(h  the  revelation  he  had  begun,  and  fully 
illustrate,  what  may  be  did  to  lie  in  embryo  in  his 
words  ?  Can  any  thing  then  be  a  cleat er  commentary  on 
Mat.  xviii.  17.  if  it  needed  any,  than  1  Cor.  vi.  i. — 
where  Paul  fpeaks  of  another  fimilar  cafe  of  difcipline  ? 
Can  it  be  fuppofed  that  the  apoftle  would  inftitute  one 
way  of  terminating  difputes,  and  his  Mailer  another  ? 
The  apotlle  makes  \.hz  faints  of  an  individual  church  at 
Corinth,  the  arbiters  of  civil  difputes.  Would  he  have 
done  fo  if  his  Lord  had  referred  peifonal  difputes  to  the 
cognizance  of  an  ecclefialtical  council  ?  No  man  will  fay 
fo. 

The  ingenious  Dr.  Campbell,  who,  in  his  Lectures  on 
church  hiltory,  has  treited  this  fubjeft  with  demonftra- 
tive  ciearnefs,  alleges  the  acceptation  of  the  word  among 
the  Jews  with  fignal  fuccefs  *.  He  (hews  that  it  was 
appropriated  with  them  in  the  fame  manner  either  to 
the  whole  nation  or  church  of  Ifrael,  which  was  a  type 
of  the  univerfal  church  of  Chrift,  or  to  thofe  that  met 
for'worfliip  in  the  fame  fynagogue.  Now,  this  being 
the  then  received  acceptation  in  the  time  of  our  Lord, 
Ire    would   not   have    been    underftood,    had    he    em- 

*  See  Dr.  CambeU's  Leflures  on  Church  Hiflory,  vol.  i. 
page  3Zo. 


63 

ployed  it  in  any  other  j  and  as  he  could  not  intend  the' 
whole  commonwealth  of  Chriitians,  it  mud  be  a  congre- 
gation of  Chriitians.  But  how  unintelligibly  do  they 
reprefent  Chrift  as  fpeaking,  who  give  fo  many  accep- 
tations to  the  word  church  ?  Suppofe  we  inlert  congre- 
gation intlead  of  church,  who  would  underfiand  him 
to  refer  to  ecclefiaftical  courts  ?  Yet  congregation  is 
no  more  fixed  by  prefbyterians  to  their  affemblies  for 
public  worfhip,  than  £xxA«s7#  was  to  denote  the  mem- 
bers of  a  fynagogue,  or  of  an  apoftolical  church.  Nei- 
ther is  exxA»<r<«  more  applicable,  nor  indeed  is  it  fo 
applicable  to  the  various  prefbyterian  affemblies,  as 
congregation.  A  fynod  or  general  affembly  might 
have  been  at  firft  denominated  congregation  as  well  as 
by  the  term  by  which  they  are  now  known.  What  pref- 
byterian now  would  fay  "  tell  it  to  the  congregation,'* 
intending  by  that  a  church  court.  Yet  this  would  not 
be  more  fenfelefs  than  what  they  attribute  to  the  Lord 
Jefus  Chrift. 

Another  argument  Dr  Campbell  brings,  equally  con- 
vincing, is  derived  from  the  practice  of  the  churches  in 
the  firft  ages.  M  Another  collateral  and  ^corroborative 
M  evidence,"  fays  he,  "  that  by  ixxXiifm  is  here  meant 
"  not  a  reprefentative  body  but  the  whole  of  a  particu- 
"  lar  congregation,  is  the  actual  ufage  of  the  church 
41  for  the  firft  three  hundred  years.  I  had  occafion 
"  formerly  to  remark,  that  as  far  down  as  Cyprian's 
44  time,  which  was  the  middle  of  the  third  century, 
"  when  the  power  of  the  people  was  on  the  decline, 
"  it  continued  to  be  the  practice,  that  nothing  in  mat- 
44  ters  of  fcandal  and  cenfure  could  be  concluded,  with- 
M  out  the  confent  and  approval  of  the  congregation, 
"  And  this,  as  it  appears  to  have  been  pretty  uniform, 
44  and  to  have  fubfilled  from  the  beginning,  is,  in  my 
44  opinion,  the  beft  commentary  which  we,  at  this 
44  diilance,  can  obtain  en  the  p*iTage."  See  page  3-5. 
vol.  i. 

I  may  add  farther,  that  the  circumftance  of  tie 
woid  church  being  afterwards  ufed  to  Ggnify  the  hc-ufe 
oi    worlhip,    is   a    very    clear  conoboiaiive    argument 


64 

argument  to  fhew  that  an  individual  worfhipping  afiem- 
bly  of  Chriftians,  and  not  a  representative  body  of  church 
rulers,  or  the  churches  of  a  particular  diilrift,  was  firfl 
fo  called.  Though  this  be  not  fcriptural,  yet  it  (hews 
the  primitive  application  of  the  word,  when  the  houfe 
received  the  name  of  the  affembly.  Juft  as  the  Jewiih 
houfes  of  worfhip  were  called  Synagogues,  from  the 
affemhline  of  the  people  therein.  This  (hews  what 
fort  of  affembly  a  church  was.  Had  it  been  a  meeting 
of  church  rulers,  like  a  fynod,  &c.  none  but  the  placet 
of  their  affembling  would  have  been  called  churches. 
This,  in  my  opinion,  is  the  moft  unexceptionable  fpecies 
of  historic  proof.  It  can  never  be  biafed,  and  is  often 
the  fureft  criterion  of  the  truth  of  fafts. 


CHAPTER    VII. 


The  Independency  of  the  ApoJloUcal  Churches  pro- 
ved, from  the  ApoJloUcal  I?ijun£lions,  and  inferred 
from  other  circumflances  in  the  Ep  files. 


Not  only  is  the  independency  of  individual  churches 
proved  from  the  origin,  and  profnne  andfacred  accepta- 
tion of  the  word  by  which  they  are  denominated  j  but 
the  laws  and  regulations  given  hv  the  anoftles  for  their 
direction,  put  the  matter  beyond  doubt. — The  whole 
difcipline  of  Chrift's  houfe  is>,  without  exception,  com- 
mitted to  the  individual  church,  confiding  of  the  parlors 
and  brethren  of  one  congregation.  Apollolical  injunc- 
tions, which  cannot  be  obeyed  in  any  other  than  an  in- 
dependent church,  implies  the  neceffity  of  independency. 
Now  of  this  fort,  are  all  the  rules,  with  refpecl  to  the 
adminiftration  of  difcipline.  It  is  the  whole  church, 
and  not  a  church  feflion,  that  is  to  receive  members. 
Rom.  xiv.  i.  "  Him  that  is  weak  in  the  faith,  receive 
ye." — "  Receive  ye."  Now,  no  prefbyterian  congrega- 
tion could  comply  with  this  injunction.  The  brethren 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  receiving  of  members. 
This  province  is  entirely  ufurped  by  the  minifler  and 
lay-elders. — The  epiftle  to  the  Corinthians,  is  addreffed 
to  the  church  of  God  at  Corinth,  which  is  explained, 
(i  Cor.  i.  2.  >  to  confift,  not  of  minifler  and  lay- elders, 
but  of  "  them  that  ate  fanctified  in  Chrift  Jtfus,  called 
to  be  faints."  Now,  the  power  of  excommunication  is 
■  exprefsly  veiled  in  the  whole  church,  (chap.  v.  3.)  not 
in  church  rulers  alone.  If  a  prefbyterian  congregation 
would  prefume  to  interfere  with  their  rulers  upon  fuch 
a  point,  it  would  be  actual  rebellion.  Nay,  the  whole 
congregation,  minifier,  elders  and  people,  could  not  put 
way  from  their  communion  the  groffeft  adulterer,  if 
*  3 


66 

the  fuper'or  ecclefiaftical  judicatories  would  think  pro* 
per  to  fcreen  him.  But  the  church  at  Corinth,  i"  com- 
manded to  put  away  from  amon%  themftlves.  that  wicked 
perfon,  (verfe  13,)  and  to  purge  out  the  old  leaven, 
(verfe  7.)  To  judge  of  the  application  of  difcipline, 
th/it  is  to  examine  and  judge  whether  a  crime  be  charge- 
able upon  an  accufed  member,  is  alfo  Hated,  (verfe  12.) 
to  be  the  bufinefs  of  the  wt  ole  church.  "  Do  ye  not 
judge  them  that  are  within  ?"  The  whole  church  is  to 
judge  the  accufed  peifon,  though  the  church  iulers  are 
to  execute  the  judgment.  Now,  a  church  which  can- 
not admit  an  apoltolical  direction,  cannot  he  apoltoli- 
cally  confthuted.  Incited.  excommunication,  though 
the  highefl  ac5r  of  church  authority,  is  fo  peculiarly  the 
buiine's  of  the  whole  church,  that  the  -ipoflle  dots  it 
rot  hnnfeif  by  an  a<5t  of  apoftolical  authority,  but  com- 
mits it  to  the  faints  themfelves,  that  there  might  be  an 
example  and  model  to  all  future  ages.  Likewife,  in 
Gal  v.  12.  he  does  not  f-v.  "  I  cut  off  thofe  that  trou- 
ble you."  but  "  I  would  that  they  were  cut  off."  The 
reftoration  of  fallen  brethren  upon  repentance,  is  alfo 
the  duty  of  the  whole  church,  ,  2  Cor.  ii.  6,  7.  8  Gnl. 
vi.  c.  1  Here,  it  is  obfervable,  that  the  excommunication 
was  not  the  act  of  a  felect  part  of  the  church,  but  '  was 
inflicted  of  many.7'  We  have  alio  feen  that  the  church 
was  the  final  judge  of  perfonal  and  civil  difputes  among 
its  members,  Mat.  xvrii.  17  1  Cor.  vi.  In  thefe  and 
other  instances,  the  instructions  and  commands  given, 
neceffarily  fuppofe  the  constitution  of  the  church  to 
which  they  were  diiected,  to  have  been  independent  j 
for  to  no  oi  her  could  they  have  been  applied  j  in  no 
other  could  they  have  bttn  executed. 

It  will  not  be  deemed  a  fafFcient  ar-fwer  to  this,  that 
the  apoltolical  difciplioe  may  be  executed  in  fpfrit 
fttbftanee,  though  not  by  thofe  spoftoheally  appointed. 
The  thing  niull  net  only  be  done,  but  done  as  it  is  corn- 
ed. 'I  he  command  rr.uit  not  only  ue  ebeyed  in  its 
prim  an  object,  but  in  the  appointed  manner,  by  tl 
vinely  appointed  agents.  Bere  we  bave  not  only  the 
thing  commanded  to  be  erne,  but  the  ptrfem.  coram  'ud- 
td  m  do  it.     We  may  as  well  fay,  that  we  .need  not  e\e- 


67 

cute  apoflolical  discipline,  as  that  it  may  not  be  done  by 
thofe  fpoOoiically  appointed.  The  judges  are  here  as 
clearly  appointed,  as  the  thing  to  be  judged.  I'o  ful- 
fil a  law,  vve  muft  not  oniy  do  the  thing  the  law  directs, 
but  in  the  manner  directed  by  the  law.  I  he  law  or- 
dains the  murderer  to  die,  but  it  does  not  warrant  any 
but  thole  legally  appointed  to  judge,  condemn,  and  ex- 
ecute him.  The  kino  fummons  his  parliament  :  but  the 
fen  itors.  intent  upon  their  rural  amufements,  or  the  im- 
provement of  their  ellates,  fend  tneir  Rewards.  They 
meet  v  they  enact  laws  ;  they  fend  them  to  the  king. 
Viil  he,  will  the  constitution,  lecognize  kich  legislators  ? 
And  will  the  Lord  Chriil  recognize  the  proceedings  of 
tlit  unconstitutional  judicatories,  of  what  are  called  re- 
prefentatjve  churches  ?  Shall  they  be  excufed.  wtio,  on 
account  or  bufinefs,  amnfement,  or  indolence,  have  neg« 
lected  the:r  duty  as  church  members  ?  Tney  have  no 
more  au  hority  to  delegate  the  perform  nice  of  this,  than 
of  any  other  duty  which  they  owe  to  fociety,  to  their 
families,  or  to  God.  —  Would  private  Chriifians  let  any 
one  perfuade  them,  that  they  were  to  be  prefent  in  hea- 
ven by  reprefentation  only  ?  It  would  be  every  whit  as 
e-ify  ro  prove  the  one  as  the  other.  In  all  the  New 
Ttftamer.t,  there  is  not  the  (hadow  of  a  reprefentation, 
in  the  church   of  Chriil, 

To  attend  to  the  affairs  of  Chrilt's  houfe,  is  theprivi/efe 
of  all  church  members.  It  argues  ingiatitude,  con- 
tempt, and  indifference,  to  transfer  that  riyht  to  others. 
But  this  is  not  only  a  privilege,  but  a  duty,  and  each 
member  is  anfwerable  for  the  perfonal  difcharge  of  it. 
Every  individual  member  has  the  king's  commiffion, 
and  the  king's  command,  to  attend  to  the  affairs  of  his 
kingdom,  in  concert  with  his  brethren.  If  any  neglect 
their  dn.ty  or  pretend  to  depute  others  to  rep  refent  them, 
they  are  guilty  of  difobedience  to  Chrirt,  indifference  to 
his  laws,  intereit,  and  honour  j  and  are  traitors,  a^  pre- 
fuming  to  alter  the  constitution  of  his  church.  If  my 
man.  or  body  of  men.  uffume  the  right  by  invafion,  or  ac- 
cept it  by  delegation  tbey  are  ufurpers,  and  act  without, 
and  contrary  to  the  king's  commands.     Eut  the   very 


68 

idea  of  a  transference  of  duty,  in  religious  mattes,  is  ab- 
iurd.  None  can  think,  judge,  or  aCl  ior  another,  vvilh 
refpeft  to  Spiritual  tilings. 

I  have  fuppofed  the  work  to  be  done,  and  discipline  to 
be  duly  ;iaminilierc-d  But  i  deny  that  this  ever  is  or  can 
be  the  cafe  in  a  perfeft  manner,  when  they  do  not  the 
work  who  are  divinely  appointed.  the  imperfect  Hate 
of  discipline,  in  all  prefbyterian  churches,  iuily  proves 
the  afiettion.  Some  or"  them,  indeed,  have  a  multipli- 
city of  human  rules,  which  they  are  vei  y  rigorous  in  put- 
ting into  execution  ;  but  I  know  not  any,  that  aft  lully 
up  to  the  difcipline  of  the  chuiches  of  the  New  Teila- 
ment. 

Not  only  is  difcipline  and  all  church  power  commit- 
ted to  the  individual  church,  but  every  direction,  com- 
mand, and  exhortation  is  iuited  to  Such  alone.  There 
aie  laws  Sufficient  in  the  New  Teilamcnt  for  the  govern- 
ment and  condufting  of  an  independent  church,  but  not 
a  fingle  rule,  or  precept,  or  example  ior  the  government 
of  a  number  of  churches  combined.  All  its  rules  and 
examples  are  applicable  to  individual  congregations  only. 
Independent  churches  have  either  precept  or  example 
for  every  cafe  that  can  poffibly  occur.  They  are  not 
obliged  to  proceed  one  Rep  upon  dubious  ground.  But 
it  is  evident  that  pre/bytenans  are  obliged  to  vindicate 
their  difcipline,  &c.  by  borrowing  what  is  applied  to  in- 
dividual chuiches.  Thus  the  epiitles  to  the  church  at 
Rome,  to  the  church  at  Corinth.  &c.  &c.  are  epiftles 
to  individual  churches,  and  fpeak  uniformly  either  of 
individual  duties,  or  reciprocal  duties  of  church-mem- 
bers, and  of  the  duties  of  the  elders  to  the  flock,  and  of 
the  flock  to  the  elders.  But  there  is  not  a  word  as  to 
the  duties  of  elders  as  members  of  an  ecclefiaftical  af- 
fembly.  or  of  the  duties  of  private  Chriftians  as  members 
of  an  ffociated  church.  Now.  if  there  wasfuch  a  thing 
as  an  atTochted  church  under  the  fame  government,  is  it 
not  llrange  we  fhouid  have  no  rules  with  relpeft  to  it  j 
that  eiders  fhou'd  have  no  directions  as  to  their  duties 
in  thefe  affemblies  ;  and  private  Christians  as  to  their 
'relations  to  them  ?     The  individual  flock  is  often  called 


6.9 

upon  to  obey  their  paftors  or  rulers,  but  never  is  either 
flock  or  (hephercl  commanded  to  obey  a  fuperior  afTem- 
bly.  The  apoftles  frequently  and  earneilly  inculcate 
love  among  the  church  members,  and  warn  them  againft 
ichifm  and  divifions.  Not  a  word,  however,  do  they  fay 
as  to  the  duty  of  union  among  feveral  churches  under 
the  fame  government,  nor  of  the  fin  of  one  church  ie- 
parating  from  another.  Is  not  this  a  plain  proof  that 
thev  were  not  externally  joined  ?  But  men  have  got  a 
convenient  way  of  quoting  fcripture  now  ;  for  what  is 
foid  (^i  Cor.  i.  10.)  againit  the  members  of  the  fame  in- 
dividual church  going  into  factions  and  parties,  they  ap- 
ply to  prove  the  fin  of  one  church  feparating  from  ano- 
ther, or  individuals  feparating  from  the  church  in  which 
they  were  educated.  We  never  hear  the  terrific  word 
fchifm  in  any  other  fenfe  in  modern  application.  But  it 
is  evident  that  the  fchifms  which  the  apoftle  here  repro- 
bates, are  not  the  feparation  of  a  part  even  of  an  indivi- 
dual church,  fo  as  to  form  another  ;  for  this  may  be  of- 
ten done  to  advantage  ;  it  is  the  members  of  the  fame 
church  running  into  faclions  and  cabals,  againft  which  he 
fpeaks.  Thus,  in  every  other  infiance,  they  have  to 
borrow  what  is  fpoken  to  individual  churches,  and  apply 
it  to  affociated  churches.  Either  the  fcriptures  are 
lame,  or  fuch  affociations  are  unfcriptural. 

There  are  various  other  indirect  hints  in  the  epiftles, 
which  will  occur  to  the  reader  who  is  accuftomed  to 
mine  into  the  word  of  God,  and  wei^h  each  particle,  as 
more  precious  than  the  gold  of  Ophir.  Truth  is  ever 
confillent,  and  that  opinion  which  does  not  gain  ftxength 
from  a  progrefiive  acquaintance  with  the  fcripture,  is  not 
likely  to  be  a  fcripture  truth.  That  hypothefis  that  for- 
bids a  minute  attention  to  the  rcoft  carnal  and  indirect 
encumftance  divinely  recorded,  cannot  be  well  founded. 
An  inftance  of  wh-.t  1  mean,  we  have  in  2  Cor.  iii.  i. 
The  apollle  reafons  that  he  had  not,  like  others,  need  of 
recommendatory  letters  either  to  or  from  the  church  at 
Corinth.  Now,  the  manner  of  the  apoftie's  fpeaking 
here,  would  have  been  altogether  improper,  had  the 
church  at  Corinth  be<-n  under  prefbyteriarj  church 
government.      He  fpeaks  of  the  recommendatory   let- 


70 

ters  as  neceffary  to  fome,  but  unneceffary  to  him,  as  com- 
ing from  the  church,  not  tbe  preibytery.  Had  the  a- 
poiUe  been  a  piefbyterian,  he  would  have  fubjecled  bim- 
felf  and  this  church  to  fevere  cenfure,  had  he  received 
credentials  from  it.  This  is  tbe  prerogative  of  the  pref- 
bytery  or  church  rulers  alone  *.  How  would  a  modern 
chuich  judicatory  refent  it,  if  a  probationer  were  to  re- 
ceive credentials  from  one  of  their  congregations  ?  The 
apoitle  himlelf  could  nor  be  received  into  the  general 
fynod,  if  he  could  not  produce  his  credentials  from  his 
preibytery.  Nor  could  any  minifter  or  congregation 
regularly  give  him  their  pulpit. 

The  whole  ftrain  of  the  letters  of  the  apoflle  Paul  to 
the  churches,  ihews  them  to  have  been  independent. 
He  uniformly  addrtffes,  praifes,  or  blames  the  church  it- 
felf,  and  never  a  church  fefiion  or  ecclefiaftical  council 
of  any  fort.  Jn  chapter  v.  and  xi.  of  1  Cor.  he  blames 
the  whole  members,  with  refpect  to  the  incestuous 
perfon  and  their  irregularities  in  eating  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. Had  they  been  under  prefbyterian  government, 
the  brethren  could  not  have  been  guilty;  in  keeping  the 
fornicator,  becaufe  they  had  no  authority  for  putting  him 
out.  The  feffion  and  fuperior  courts  would  have  been 
exclusively  to  blame  j  aud  would,  undoubtedly,  have  re- 
ceived marked  apollolical  cenfure.  If  improper  perfons 
are  admitted  to  communion  among  prefbyterians,  whit 
private  member  takes  the  guilt  upon  himlelf ;  but,  if  he 
difapproves  of  it,  exclaims  againft  the  fetlion.  Upon  the 
fame  perfons  fhould  the  abufes  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
have  been  principally  chargeable. 

In  like  manner,  when  our  Lord  writes  to  the  feven 
churches  of  Afia,  he  praiies  or  blames  them  individually. 
He  never  cenfures  one,  for  the  errors  of  another,  though, 
with  great  feverity,  he  reprimands  each,  for  tbe  errors 
of  any  part  of  itfelf.  He  charges  the  whole  church  as 
guilty,  in  keeping  or  retaining  in  communion  an  errone- 

*  See  alfo  Acls  xviii.  27.  When  Apollos  was  rlifpofed 
to  pals  over  into  Ac'uaia,  he  received  recommendatory  letieis 
from  the  brethren,  not  a  claflical  picfbyttry. 


71 

ous  or  profligate  member  ;  but  he  never  charges  one 
church,  with  the  errors  of  another.  Now,  if  they  had 
been  under  the  prefbyterian  foim  of  church  government, 
all  the  churches  would  have  been  chargeable  with  the 
faults  and  defects  of  each,  as  much  as  the  whole  indivi- 
dual church  was  chargeable  with  thofe  of  its  members. 
Neither  does  he  call  upon  the  one  to  reform  the  other  ; 
but  each  to  reform  itfelf.  Now,  had  the  churches  of 
Ltfler  Alia  been  prefbyterian,  our  Lord  would  have 
written  to  the  fynod  or  prefbytery,  and  not  to  the  indivi- 
dual churches  to  reform  themfelves.  A  prefbyterian 
congregation  cannot  reform  rtfelf.  Chrift,  therefore, 
could  not  have  been  the  author  of  prefbytery. 


72 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


Having  invefligated  the  claims  of  preAiytery  and  in- 
dependency upon  Icriptuve  evidence,  it  may  be  proper 
to  take  notice  of  fome  objections  that  I  h*ve  heard  urg- 
ed againft  the  fcheme  which  I  defend.  Some  of 
are  really  fo  futile,  that  I  am  almoit  afh  imed  to  bring 
them  forward,  to  give  them  a  formal  refutation.  But 
I  have  obferved  in  convention  on  this  fu~jeft,  that 
when  the  advoc  .Us  of  prefbytery  are  driven  from  the 
fciipture?,  they  fometiroes  fhelter  themfelves  under  the 
fuppofed  defefts  of  independency,  or  adv  intakes  of  pref- 
bytery. And  it  is  really  aftonithing  with  what  (uper- 
ficial  renfoning.  they  will  impofe  upon  themfelves.  A 
few  of  fuch  objections  I  will  mention,  and  diipaich  with 
the  utmoft  brevity. 

i.  It  is  alleged,  that  "  there  are  too  many  feels  al- 
«  ready,  and  that  we  ihould  rather  endeavour  to  unite 
«'  thofe  that  are  already  formed,  than  form  another." 
I  pe.feftly  agree  with  the  ol :jec"lor,  that  there  are  too 
ma.iv  feds  already,  and  that  it  is  our  duty  to  endea- 
vour to  unite  ChriaimiS  in  all  things.  But  how  is  tins 
to  be  done  ?  Is  it  by  eacn  party  propofing  to  throw 
a. vay  a  part  of  what  they  look  upon  to  be  truth,  and 
embrace  a  little  of  what  they  coniider  wrong,  that  they 
may  fplice  up  a  worldly  union  ?  Is  it  by  the  church 
rulers  of  different  fefts,  meeting  to  compromile  their  dif- 
ferences, like  a  reference  after  a  quarrel  in  a  country 
fair  '  Is  it  by  fuch  language  as  this,  ''  I  will  give  up 
fo  much,  give  you  up  fo  much,  and  we  will  meet  :  *  Is 
this  a  fcriptural  way  to  unite  lefts  ?  Is  it  not  rathe 
etch  to  appeal  to  the  Bible,  and  meet  on  that  con 


73 

ground  ?  Should  not  the  language  be,  "  We  cannot  all 
"  be  right,  let  us  then  try  our  fyftems  by  the  ftandard 
11  of  truth,  adopt  whatever  it  recommends,  and  reject 
'.'  whatever  it  condemns  ?."  Truly  it  is  a  very  modeft. 
way  of  reafoning,  that  there  are  fo  many  feels  already, 
that  there  is  no  room  for  introducing  the  model  which 
Chrift  has  left  us  in  the  churches  of  the  apoftles  !  If 
once  Chriftians  could  be  brought  to  feel  it  their  duty  to 
ceafe  from  man,  and  renounce  every  ftandard  but  the 
Bible,  they  would  not  be  long  in  uniting.  Every  union 
that  is  attempted,  or  iffe&ed  upon  other  grounds,  is  not 
of  God,  but  of  the  world. 

2.  It  is  fufpe&ed  that  "  the  encouragement  that  is 
11  given  to  call  in  queftion  the  opinions  of  our  fore-fa- 
"  thers,  and  fcrutinize  them  fo  feverely  by  the  fcriptures, 
"  will  excite  iuch  a  fpirit  of  innovation,  that  it  will  lead 
"  to  univeifal  fcepticifm."  Nay,  fome  go  fo  far  as  ac- 
tually to  fix  the  time  when  fuch  inquirers  muft  be  advan- 
ced into  atheifts. 

Truly  it  is  a  very  aftonilhing  thing  that  a  habit  of 
fearching  the  word  of  God,  of  relying  implicitly  upon. 
it,  and  comparing  all  humui  opinions  with  that  ftand- 
ard, muft  lead  to  fcepticifm.  As  well  may  it  be  faid, 
that  a  habit  of  trufting  God  will  lead  us  to  diftruft  him. 
The  fcriptures  then  are  to  blame  for  commending  the 
Bereans  for  "  fearching  the  fcriptures  daily  whether 
thefe  things  were  fo."  If  our  ancefiors  at  the  reforma- 
tion, had  been  afraid  of  thefe  confequences,  they  never 
would  have  dared  to  call  in  queftion  the  antient  ufages 
of  their  fathers,  or  to  have  condemned  them  by  the  word 
of  God.  Never  can  any  hurt  arife  from  fearching  the 
fcriptures  and  a  habit  of  being  regulated  by  them. 
"  To  the  law  and  to  the  teflimony  j  if  they  fpeak  not 
agreeable  to  this  word,  it  is  becaufe  there  is  no  light  in 
them." 

I  do  not  however  mean  to  fay,  that  there  are  no   ex- 
tremes on  this  fide  ott!  e  queftion  :  but  J    do   fay.   that 
thefe  do  not  confift  m  comparing  every  human   opinion 
about  divine  things,  with  the  word  of  God  >  in  reject- 
G 


71 

Ing  every  tittle  of  what  is  contrary  to  this  ftandard  ; 
and  adopting  themereft  minutire  or"  what  is  pointed  out. 
To  run  ir.ro  extremes  here,  mull  be  to  go  farther  than 
the  fcriptures.  Wnile  we  keep  upon  this  ground,  we 
cannot  advance  too  far.  But  in  fearching  the  fcriptures 
upon  this,  as  well  as  every  other  fubject,  there  is  great 
need  of  humility,  and  a  confcioulnefs  of  our  own  noMiing- 
nefs  in  the  fight  of  God.  If  ever  we  begin  the  fearch  with 
a  defire  to  go  beyond  others,  and  have  the  honour  to  be 
more  fharp- lighted  than  thole  who  preceded  us,  we  ihall 
certainly  err.  The  natural  pride  of  the  human  heart 
ihews  itfelf  in  various  ways,  and  it  is  not  ftrange  that  it 
ihould  fometimes  lead  even  good  men  into  (insularities. 
The  fcriptures  are  plain,  but  it  is  only  "  the  Spirit  that 
can  lead  us  into  all  truth."  In  fearching  the  fcriptures 
for  the  mind  of  God,  we  ihould  never  neglect  to  afk, 
not  formally,  but  earneltly  and  continually,  the  guidance 
of  th  it  heavenly  conductor.  O  tvhat  prayer  !  what  felf- 
abnfement  !  w  hat  a  thirft  for  truth  !  what  felf  denial,  are 
necefiary  in  thofe  who  would  advance  in  the  knowledge 
of  divine  things  !  If  we  depend  upon  our  own  fuperior 
fagacity,  if  we  prize  not  the  frralleft  fcripture  truth  as 
more  prtcious  than  rubies,  and  are  not  ready  to  give  up 
the  dearelt  earthly  poffeflions  and  connexions  rather  than 
part  with  it  ;  if  we  hive  not  irmplicity  of  view,  and  a 
{Ingle  eye  to  the  glory  of  God,  it  will  not  be  ftrange  if 
we  go  ailray  in  our  fearch.  But  if  we  are  made  willing 
to  receive  truth  at  the  greateft  rifk.  ana1,  confeious  of 
our  weaknefs,  inc.fluntly  and  importunately  to  cave 
the  direction  of  the  Spirit,  I  do  not  think  that  the  God 
of  tiuth  will  fuffer  us  to  be  led  allray.  Wliillt,  there- 
fore', we,  like  the  Berenns.  fearch  the  fcriptures  for  our- 
felves,  let  us  not  br  hcor/y  or  high-minded,  but  hum- 
bly wait  at  the  feet  of'Jefus,  to  learn  wildom  from  his 
lips. 

3.  It  is  alleged  that  "  the  piefbyterian  form  of  go- 
"  vernment  is  better  calculated  to  reprefs  1  erefy,  pre- 
*'  ferve  purity  of  doctrine,  aird  authoritatively  lettle  all 
M  dilputes  that  arife  among  their  congregations."  But 
I  afk,  hotv  have  they  this  power  ?  Is  it  by  force  or  per- 
iuafion  ?  If  it  is  by  the  latter,  then  independents  ei  joy 


75 

it  in  its  utmort  latitude  ',  if  it  is  by  the  farmer,  then  the 
gorpel  difcl-ims  it  ;  Chrift  abhors  it.  Is  not  this  evi- 
dently inconfiltent  with  the  whole  fpirit  and  letter  of 
the  gofpel  ?  F'nefe  are  carnal,  not  fpiritual  weapons. 
Is  not  this  to  put  a  hand  to  the  ark,  and  a  diftrul*  of  the 
power  of  the  great  head  of  the  church,  who  bears  it  upon 
his  own  fhoulders  ?  What  is  the  crime  in  the  nations 
which  God  hath  always  punifhed  with  the  greateft  rig- 
our ?  Is  it  not  that  of  prefuminy  to  t  <ke  upon  themfelves 
the  defence  and  protection  of  his  people  the  Jews? 
Thofe  who  injured  his  people,  are  indeed  punifhed  ;  but 
thofe  who  ftepped  in  between  him  and  them,  to  take 
their  confidence  oft"  himlelf,  are  punifhed  with  the  ut« 
moft  feverity.  Egypt,  that  oppreffed  Ifrael,  was  pu- 
nifhed •,  but  the  crime  was,  as  it  were,  afterwards  for- 
gotten ;  but  Egypt  that  became  the  ft  iff  of  Ifrael,  is  not. 
pardoned  till  this  very  day.  From  the  overthrow  of 
Neeianebus  by  Ochus,  350  years  before  Chrift,  it  never 
has  had  a  king  of  its  own  Degraded  from  among  the 
nations,  governed  by  foreigners,  erflaved  and  oppreffed, 
God  hath  exhibited  it  as  a  malefactor  in  the  gibbet, 
for  a  warning  to  others.  He  is  as  jealous  of  the  prero- 
gative of  fupporting  his  church,  as  a  hufband  is  of  the 
confidence  and  affeclion  of  his  wife,  and  views  every 
foreign  interference,  as  an  attack  upon  his  honour.  Will 
men,  then,  never  learn  to  truft  God  with  his  own  caufe, 
and  ufe  only  the  means  that  he  hsth  appointed  to  pre- 
ferve  his  truths  ?  Will  they  never  ceafe  to  provoke  his 
jealoufy,  by  affociations  to  defend  his  church  ?  Is  there 
any  fear  that  ever  the  gates  of  hell  will  (hake  it  offlm- 
manuel's  fhoulders  ?  Alas  that  ever  Chriftians  (hould 
have  thought  of  fubilitutinghuman  bulwarks,  for  the  con- 
tinual p'efence  of  Jehovah,  who  is  as  a  voait  of  Jire 
around  his  Zion  ! 

But  the  prefhyterian  method  of  preferving  orthodoxy, 
and  fettling  difputes,  is  not  only  unfcriptural,  but  is  al- 
ways without  any  real  advantage.  They  may  keep 
their  members  from  preaching  contrary  to  their  ftand- 
ard  bar  can  they  enable  *"  the  blind  to  lead  the  blind, 
without  both  falling  into  the  ditch."     Force  may  make 


76 

a  hypocrite,  but  can  never  make  a  Chriftian.  Intereft 
may  conflrain  a  carnal  man  to  profefs  the  leading  truths 
of  the  gofpel,  but  midnight  darknefs  will  reign  in  his 
congregation.  Among  many  there. is  a  continual  crv  of 
faundmfs  and  orthodoxy,  who  appear  to  everv  fpiritual 
man  to  be  detiitute  of  the  truth,  as  it  is  in  Jefus,  and  to 
hold  the  truth  in  unrighteoufiiefs.  Even  among  the 
ilri6ter  feels  of  prefbyterians,  lam  conftrai.ned  to  fay, 
that  while  fome  of  them  do  not  fail  to  (hew  their  zeal 
by  lifting  tip  a  teftimony  againft  the  corruptions  of  the 
general  ly.no. 1,  they  appear  to  be  bunting  after  the  world 
with  equal  avidity.  And  1  know  where  it  is  faid,  •'  If 
any  man  love  the  world,  the  love  of  the  father  is  not  in 
him." 

4.  It  is  alleged  in  behalf  of  prefbytery,  that  "  in  the 
"  multitude  of  counfellors  there  is  fafety  ;  that  feveral 
"  congregations  muft  have  more  wifdom  than  one  j  and 
M  that  an  affembly  of  learned  men  muft  be  better  quali- 
"  fled  to  tranfaft  church  matters  than  an  ignorant  mul- 
titude." 

This  reafoning  might  have  fome  effeft,  if  there  wai 
any  thing  left  to  the  wifdom  of  man.  The  generality 
of  Chriftians,  are  the  "  weak  things  of  this  world."  and 
of  all  men  living  they  are  the  leaft  qualified  for  the  ar- 
duous duty  of  legiflation.  But  thanks  be  to  God,  he 
hath  left  no  fuch  things  to  be  done  by  any.  Evei  v  ne- 
ctffary  law  and  direction  are  given,  and  nothing  more  is 
neceff.iry,  than  to  judge  of  their  application,  to  which 
the  moll  ordinary  capacity  is  equal,  in  the  ufe  of  the 
appointed  means,  and  under  the  promifed  guidance  of 
the  Spirit.  Poor  defpifed  Chriftians  would  indeed  be  ill 
qualified  to  appear  in  what  is  impioufly  llyled  a  court 
of  (Thrift.  But  the  meaneft  and  moll  ignorant  of  them 
are  equal  to  judge  of  every  cafe  of  difciplme,  that  can 
occur  in  Chrift's  houfe  ;  for  it  is  faid  that  "  they  (hall  be 
all  taught  of  God  "  And  indeed  I  would  expeft  a 
more  ju'ft  determination  from  fuch,  than  from  the  repre- 
fentatives  1  f  all  the  churches  on  earth.  Chrift's  pre- 
fence  is  with  the  one,  as  being  according  to  his  own  ap- 


77 

pointment,  while  it  is  likely  the  other  (hall  be  left  to 
their  own  wifdom  *. 

*  Such  objrclors  differ  very  widely  from  the  Apoftle 
Paul,  who  luppoles  that  even  the  weakeft  Dints  aie  capa« 
ble  of  judging  not  merely  of  the  fpiritual  concerns  of  the 
church,  but  alio  of  fettling  the  civil  difputes  of  the  bre- 
thren, i  Cor  vi.  4  "  If  then  ye  have  judgments  of  things 
pertaining  to  this  life,  fet  them  to  judge  who  are  leaft  ef- 
teemed  in  the  chutch  "  We  are  not  to  fuppofe  from  this 
however,  that  a  church  is  always  to  felecl  "  the  leaft  ef- 
teemed"  for  the  arbitration  of  civil  differences.  In  my  opi- 
nion the  fpirit  of  the  palfage  is  this— differences  among 
brethren  fhould  be  fettled  by  arbitration  of  the  church. 
Some  of  the  Corinthians  had  trarifgreffed  this  rule,  and 
(hewn,  by  their  appealing  to  the  civil  law,  that  they  fup- 
pofed  there  were  not  any  among  their  brethien  fit  for  this 
office  The  apoftle  takes  fire  at  the  fuppofition,  that  thoje 
who  were  to  judge  wicked  men  and  angels  as  affeffors  with 
Chrift  in  the  great  day,  mould  be  efteemed  unfit  to  judge 
in  fuch  comparatively  trivial  matters;  and  to  fhew  them 
that  he  looked  upon  all  Chriftians  to  be  qualified  for  this 
bufinels,  he  bids  them  choofe  from  among  themfelves  even 
thofe  that  were  accounted  the  weakeft.  As  if  he  had  faid, 
to  (hew  you  that  they  are  wife  in  whom  the  Spirit  of  God 
dwells,  let  the  *'  leaft  efteemed"  brethren  be  fmgled  out 
upon  any  emergency,  and  they  will  wifely  determine  the 
matter.  Then  he  fubjoins,  "  I  fpeak  this  to  your  fhamei" 
you  have  looked  upon  all  your  brethren  as  unwife  or  un- 
juft  ;  the  Spirit  of  God  declares  them  all,  even  the  leaft  ef- 
teemed of  them,  to  be  qualified  to  fettle  your  difputes.  Arc 
you  not  then  afhamed  of  your  opinion  and  corducl,  with 
refpecl,  to  your  brethren,  judging  fo  unfavourably  of  them, 
and  differing  fo  much  fiom  the  judgment  of  God  ?  That  the 
apoftle  looked  upon  all  the  faints  as  fit  for  fuch  an  office, 
is  clear,  not  onlv  from  the  words  **  leaft  efteemed,"  but 
alio  from  the  arguments  of  illutt ration  in  the  2d  and  3d 
verfes — the  faints  judging  the  world  and  fallen  angels. 
All  the  faints  fmall  and  great, (hall  have  thishonour;  there- 
fore, to  make  the  argument  conclufive,  all  the  faints  mud 
be  fit  for  the  duty  of  arbitration  But  that  a  church  is  not 
bound  alwayr  to  ftleft  the-"  leaft  efteemed"  for  this  pur- 
pofe,  is  clear,  not  only  from  the  fpirit  of  the  paffage  already 
explained,  but  from  what  follows  in  the  5th  verfe — "  Is  it 
fo  that  there  is  not  a  wife  m?n  amongft  you  ?  No,  not  one 
that  fhall  be  able  to  judge  between  his  brethren  ?"  This 
queftion  fuppofes,  that  the  church  was  at  liberty  to  choofe 
G3 


78 

I  have  heard,  that  the  moft  ufoal,  and  the  molt  effec- 
tual way  that  certain  perlons  have  taken  to  prejudice 
the  minds  of  the  people  of  this  country  againlt  indepen- 
dents, is,  by  representing  them  as  "  difoiderly  j" — 
"  without  diicipline  j" — "  breaking  down  the  hedge  j" 
•— "  not  coming  in  by  the  door." 

In  the  New  Tcftament,  Chrift  calls  bimfelf  the  doorj 
if  any  one,  then,  come-not  in  at  this  door,  1  heartily 
confent  that  all  pulpit  doors  be  Ihut  against  him.  God 
is  laid  to  have  made  a  hedge  about  his  vineyard.  But 
it  feems  now,  that  not  Cm  ill,  but  the  prefbytery,  is  the 
door,  and,  that  the  hedge  01  God's  laws  and  institutions 
is  not  Sufficiently  high  and  prickly  to  keep  out  wild 
bealls,  but  it  muft  be  new-made,  or  at  ltalt  mended  by 
fynodical  authority.  I  am  afraid  that  the  generality, 
even  of  Christians,  in  this  country,  are  much  miftaken 
in  tneir  notions  of  the  diicipline  of  Chriffs  houfe.  It 
is  not  the  punctual  attention  to  a  wide  fyftem  of  human 
rules  and  regulations,  that  deferves  the  name  of  difci- 
pline,  but  the  faithlul  execution  of  all  the  laws,  given  by 
Chrift  in  the  New  Testament.  Thofe  fects,  w  ho,  in  this 
country,  are  molt  highly  ppplauded  for  difcipline,  have 
indeed,  a  iigorous  code  of  human  iaws,  and  are  peculiar- 
ly Strict  in  the  obfervance  of  them  ;  but  this  is  not  dif- 
cipline, but  eccieiiaflical  ufurpationand tyranny.  Christ's 
difcipline  is  calculated  to  prevent  the  entrance  of  the 
carnal  profefibr,  or  to  discover  him,  if  he  has  been  ad- 
mitted. But  fuch  a  perfon,  it  he  his  a  decent  behavi- 
our, and  a  found  of  orthodoxy,  might  pafs  his  life  in 
the  mjft  rigorous  prefbyterian  connections,  without  de- 
tection. He  muft,  indeed,  have  a  considerable  portion 
of  pharifaical  righteoufnefs,  but  he  will  be  admitted  and 

feft  among  the  brethren.  V then,  the  "  leaft  eRcem- 
ed,"  are  qualified  judges,  they  are  inexcu  fable,  who  will 
not  be  amenable  to  the  decifion  of  the  moft  elteemed  in  the 
church.  Coioilarv — If  the  weaker!  brethren  are  qualified 
to  decide  in  matteis  of  property,  without  appealing  to  tie 
fupeiior  learning,  wifdom,  or  judicial  knowledge  of  a  pref- 
bytery or  fynoJ,  nay  without  even  appealing  to  the  civil 
law,  much  more  are  they  qualified  to  judge  cf  every  thing, 
as  to  the  difcipline  of  Clirdt's  houfe. 


79' 

continued  without  the  life  and  power  of  godlinefs.  ThJ9 
is  a  bold  charge  ;  if  any  feft  of  prdb)terians  think,  it 
unjuft,  let  them  repel  it.  Before  they  can  do  this,  they 
rnurt  be  able  to  declare,  that  there  is  not  an  individual 
in  their  connexion,  that  they  do  not  look  upon  as  a 
member  of  Chtift.  If  they  cannot  make  this  declara- 
tion, their  difcipline  is  defective.  I  can  refer  them  to 
an  independent  church,  confining  of  more  than  600 
members,  in  which  etch  individual  can  make  this  de- 
claration concerning  his  brethren.  I  am  therefore  con- 
strained to  charge  luch  obiedors  either  with  the  groiY- 
elt  ignorance,  or  wilful  mineprefentation.  A  want  of 
difcipline.  is  what  I  charge  upon  prefbyterians.  This 
is  among  the  chief  o'ojeftions  I  have  to  them.  "  Ey 
their  traditions,  they  have  made  void  the  law  of  God." 
But  let  them  produce  one  fingle  mle  of  difcipline,  ap- 
pointed by  Chriit,  which  independents  refufe  to  admit. 
If  they  can  (hew  them  any  thing  in  lcripture,  which 
they  have  not  hitherto  obferved,  I  am  fure  they  will 
not  aft  up  to  their  principles,  if  they  do  not  adopt  it 
with  gratitude.  But  if  they  mull;  be  called  "  difordeily," 
becaufe  they  reject  the  interference  of  man  in  the  things 
of  God,  becaule  they  refu!e  obedience  to  any  rules  but 
thofe  of  Chrift,  they  are  not  concerned  to  repel  the 
charge. 

6.  When  prefbyterians  are  driven  from  the  Eible, 
they  fometimes  (belter  themfelves  under  the  wings  of 
learned  and  pious  men.  "  Are  you  wiier  or  better  than 
u  our  anceftors,  who  have  (lied  their  blood  for  prefby- 
"  tery  ?  If  ever  the  Spirit  of  God  was  with  any  body 
"  of  men,  it  was  with  the  Wertminfter  divines."  With 
fome,  it  is  very  common  to  point  at  the  reformation  as 
perfeft,  and  every  declenfion  in  principle  or  praclice  in 
profeffors,  is  a  declenfion,  not  from  the  fcriptures,  but 
the  rtformation.  They  muft  indeed  be  blind,  who  do 
not  look  upon  the  reformation  as  the  greateft  national 
bleffmg  any  people  ever  experienced  j  but  thole  who 
thus  idolize  the  reformers,  are  guiity  of  fetting  up  ano- 
ther God  in  Ifrael.  However  much  we  have  been 
benefited  by  their  labours,  however  eminent  were  their 
attainments,  it  is  "to  the  law,  and  to   the   teiilmony," 


80 

not  to  the  reformers,  we  are  direcled  as  the  flandard  of 
truth.  As  to  the  Weftminiter  affembly,  I  am  neither 
concerned  to  accufe  nor  condemn  them — Epifcopacy, 
prefbytery,  and  independency  have  each  had  fome  of 
the  molt  pious  men  in  the  lid  of  their  defenders  ;  the 
Chriltian  thtn  can  have  no  fafe  guide  but  the  Bible. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Reafons  why  fome  are  apt  to  conclude,  that   there   is 
no  Church-model  in  Scripture. 

I  have  now  given  my  reafons,  why  it  is  probable 
that  the  fcriptures  of  the  New  Teflament  contain  a  mo- 
del of  church  government,  and  have  examined  the  pre- 
tentions of  prefbytery  and  independency.  Before  I  dif- 
mifs  the  fubjeft  of  church  government,  I  think,  it  not 
amifs,  to  point  out  a  few  reafons,  why  fome  ingenious 
and  pious  men  have  not  been  able  to  difcover  any  de- 
finite plan  of  any  kind,  if  difinterefted  enquirers  differ 
materially  uDon  any  point,  in  the  examination  of  which 
they  draw  from  a  common  iource,  there  is  likely  to  be 
fome  circumftanccs  in  their  fituation  which  lead  to  the 
difference  ;  fomething  that  tends  to  involve  the  fubjecl 
of   inquiry. 

I.  In  my  opinion,  one  tl  ing  that  tends  to  prevent 
fome  from  feeing  a  model  ot  church  government  in  the 
New  Teftament,  is,  their  being  accuflomed  to  take  their 
ideas  of  the  government  of  a  fpiritual,  from  that  of  a  tem- 
poral kingdom.  1  hey  are  apt  to  expecl  a  vigorous  plan, 
a-kin  to  their  ideas  of  the  beft  conftituted  civil  govern- 
ments. Whatever  they  judge  the  beft  calculated  to 
govern  a  kingdom  of  this  world,  they  look  upon  to  be 
the  fitted  for  the  kingdom  of  Chrift.  In  examining  the 
fcriptures,  then,  it  is  no  wonder  they  pafs  and  repafs 
the  apoftolical  model,  without  feeing  it.     This  is  too 


fimple  to  be  effectual.  Like  Naaman  the  Syrian,  wh© 
thought  be  was  mocked  by  the  prophet,  when  he  pre- 
fcribed  as  his  cure,  to  wafh  in  the  water  of  Jordan,  they 
do  not  think  it  worth  their  trouble,  even  to  give  it  a 
trial.  l'hev  muft  have  a  firm  and  coercive  plan,  calcu- 
lated to  fuftain  C'iriftianity,  and  avenge  it  of  its  adverfa- 
ries,  as  civil  rights  are  by  civil  laws.  In  this  view,  I 
grant  that  the  apoftolical  government  muft  difappear, 
when  brought  into  contraft  or  competition  with  either 
prefbytery  or  epifcopacy.  Preibytery  is  a  vigorous 
republic  ;  but  as  I  faid  elfewhere,  this  is  not  calculated 
to  govern  a  fingle  carnal  family.  It  would  be  totally 
inefficient  in  worldly  policy.  Tothofe,then  who  have 
thefe  worldly  ideas  of  Chrift's  kingdom,  independency 
is  like  David  going  out  with  his  fling  and  pebbles  againft 
Goliah. 

2.  Others  are  much  influenced  by  the  carnal  inftitu- 
tions,  and  pompous  and  maltifarious  Jewifli  heirarchy 
and  fanhedrim.  They  are  apt  to  transfer  their  ideas  of 
the  government  of  the  [ewifh  church,  to  that  of  the 
Chriftian.  If  they  are  too  impartial  and  enlightened  to 
pretend  to  fee  any  thing  of  this  nature  in  the  New  Tef- 
tameut,  they  are  inclined  to  think,  that  for  this  reafon, 
we  are  left  to  form  a  mode  of  church  government  for 
ourfelves,  according  to  time  and  circumfiances.  They 
do  not  find  wnat  they  expect,  and  they  haftily  conclude 
that  nothing  is  to  be  found. 

3.  Many  inquirers  have  been  all  their  lives  fo  accu- 
flomed  to  tre  •pompou",  multif  irious.  and  complicated 
fyftems  of  prefbytery,  and  epifcopacy,  that  when  they 
go  to  the  New  I  eftament  they  are  led  to  overlook  the 
fimple  apoftolical  plan.  Their  minds  are  fiiled  with  thefe 
intricate  ind  punctilious  fyftems,  and  are  fo  habituated 
to  the  voluminous  canons,  laws,  rules,  regulations,  adfs, 
&c.  &c.  &c.  which  are  to  be  found  in  almoft  all 
modern  churches,  that  the  Scripture  directions  for 
church  govemn  ent,  appear  altogether  defective,  ob- 
fcure,  and  unadequate.  I'hey  look  into  the  Scriptures 
—they  can  find  neither  the  church  of  England,  nor 
the  church  of  Scotland,  nor  any  of  the  numerous  fefls 


82 

formed  on  the  fame  model — they  inftantly_  conclude, 
that  there  is  no  form  of  government  revealed,  or  at 
molt,  is  only  coarfely  blocked,  to  be  vaiioufly  formed 
or  fhaped  according  to  the  dilTerent  humours  of  fucceed- 
ing  ages. 

4.  Another  reafon  why  fome  are  inclined  to  conclude 
that  there  is  nothing  delivered  in  Scripture  fufhcient 
for  the  government  of  a  church,  is,  that  many  writers 
liave  represented  the  matter  much  more  clear,  full,  and 
exprefs,  than  it  is  in  reality.  With  fome  there  is  not 
a  doftrine  more  cleirly  and  filly  revealed  in  Scripture. 
They  can  fee  their  favourite  fyltem  in  almoft  every  page. 
When  we  hear  men  arguing  from  the  tabernacle  of  Mo- 
fes,  to  the  polity  of  the  Chritlian  church,  and  afferting 
thu  Chrift's  faithfulnefs  engaged  him  to  be  as  explicit, 
full  and  particular,  in  giving  a  model  for  the  govern- 
ment of  his  church,  as  Moles  was  in  erecYmg  the  Ta- 
bernacle, and  thus  determining  a  priori,  with  the  moil 
arrogant  confidence,  what  Chrifl  muft  have  done,  inftead 
6f  considering  what  he  has  actually  done,  we  are  apt  to 
expe£t  the  mojljlately  fabric.  When  we  go  to  the 
Scriptures  themfelves,  if  we  cannot  fee  through  the 
magnifying  glafTes  of  particular  fe£ls,  and  fwallow  their 
high  probalides  for  demonstration,  we  are  ready  to  con- 
clude that  there  is  no  definite  model  at  all.  They  make 
us  expe£t  a  giant  ;  we  fee  a  man,  of  nothing  but  the 
ordinary  fize  ;  and  from  our  difappointment.  we  are 
ready  to  look  upon  h;m  as  a  very  dwarf.  When  we 
are  made  to  expect  too  much,  we  are  apt  to  be  chagrin- 
ed with  our  difappointment  ;  and  front  our  previous 
high  imagination,  we  think  the  objeft  more  infignifi- 
cant  than  it  really  is.  Dr  Pococke  tells  us  he  had 
formed  fuch  an  idea  of  the  celebrated  catarafts  of  the 
Nile,  from  the  exaggerated  accounts  of  former  travel- 
lers, that  when  he  came  in  fight  of  them,  fo  very  much 
did  they  fall  below  his  expectations,  fo  far  from  thinking 
thefe  to  be  the  objects  of  his  curiofity,  he  afked  when 
he  fhould  reach  them  ;  and  it  was  not  without  furprife, 
that  he  was  told  they  were  already  in  view.  Such  is  the 
cife  with  many  when  they  go  to  look  for  church  govern- 
ment in  the  Scriptures. 


S3 

*5-  Another  thing  that  tends  to  hide  the  Scripture 
mock  1  from  fome  inquirers  is  their  expedition  of  a  fyf- 
tematic  plan,  or  a  formal  treatife  on  the  fubjtcl.  They 
look  for  a  jointed  fcheme,  as  methodically  detailed,  as 
prefbytery  is  exhibited  in  the  Weitminifter  Confeffion. 
When  they  look  into  the  New  Teflament  for  fuch  a 
plan,  there  is  nothing  like  it  to  be  found  ;  the  half 
of  the  whole  epiftles  would  fcarcely  contain  fuch  a  fyf- 
tem.  The  conlufion  then  is,  that  no  form  of  church 
government  is  revealed.  I  would  alk  fuch  inquirers, 
upon  what  do  they  found  their  expectation  of  a  fyf- 
tem,  or  formal  treatife  on  church  government  ?  Is  there 
in  the  whole  range  of  revelation,  any  thing  like  a  fyf- 
tem,  upon  any  fubjeel  ?  Is  there  any  doclrine,  is  there 
any  precept  in  fcripture  delivered  fyftematically  ?  Tske, 
for  inftance,  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  j  we  do  not 
find  all  the  texts  that  illullrate  this  doctrine,  collected 
into  a  fyftem,  but  fcattered  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end  of  revelation.  In  the  lame  manner,  doctrines  and 
precepts  are  not  kept  diiiii:cl,  but  intentionally  inter- 
mingled, as  it  were,  to  prevent  daring  men  from  fepar- 
ating  them,  and  feting  up  the  one  in  opposition  to  the 
other.  Doclrines  are  there  taught  praclicaily,  and  pre- 
cepts as  flowing  from  the  doctiines.  We  have  in  the 
fame  reafoning,  in  the  fame  period,  doctrine  arid  pre- 
cept. Thus  in  Plulipians  ii.  5,  — 11,  we  have  the 
doclrine  of  Chrift's  equality  with  the  Father,  and  the 
precept  of  humility,  as  flowing  from  this,  in  the  fame 
period. 

• 
Indeed  the  rmnner  of  the  revelation  of  divine  truth, 
feems  every  where  calculated  and  intended  to  excite 
to  induftry  and  fearch,  and  overcome  our  natural  love 
of  eafe.  Nothing  is  got  by  the  lazy  ard  inattent've. 
While  on  the  one  hand  the  great  truths  of  revelation 
are  fo  plain,  that  a  man  may,  as  it  were,  "  run  and 
read,"  beingTo.und  in  every  pt'ge,  fothat  *'  the  wayfar- 
ing man,  though  a  fool,  cannot  err  therein  j"  on  the 
other,  it  is  fo  wifely  regulated  to  fpur  us  to  exertion, 
that  to  exhibit  completely  in  all  its  features  and  bear- 
ings, and  effectually  prove  any  one  point,  it  is  neceffary 
to  turn  over  and  over,  fearch  eveiy  page,   compare  ipi- 


84 

ritual  things  with  fpiritual,  and  examine  the  fame  doc- 
trine in  the  different  connexions  and  views  in   which  it 
is  fousd  in  Scripture.     In  one  text  a  doctrine  is  taught, 
perhaps  with  all  its  tffential  parts,  but  with  fome  of  its 
features  more  marked  and  prominent   than  others,    ac- 
cording to   the  purpofe   the    Holy  Spirit   meant   it   to 
ferve  on  th  it  particular  occafion.    In   another,  the  fame 
truth  is  brought  forward  in  a  different  point  of  view,  to 
ferve  a  different  purpofe,  with  the   features   that    were 
lefs  prominent  in  the  other,  now  more  marked  and    di- 
flinct.       Like   a  painter   who   would  exhibit  the  fame 
fcene   :n   a   multiplicity  of  views,  alternately   bringing 
forward  and  putting  into  the  back   ground  the  diff  rent 
objects  which  he  wants  to  reprefent.       In  01  e  reprefen- 
tation  we  have  a  palace  as  the  chief  object  of  attention, 
and  its  owner  and  family  walking  at  fome  diftance,   are 
feen  indiitin£Hy.      In  another,  the  owner,  if  a  celebnt- 
ed  pevfonage,  is  reprefented  as  the  chief  object,  and  the 
pal  ice  is  put  in?o  the  fhade.       In  another,  if  the   pain- 
ter has  an  intention  to  fhew  us  principally,  fome  farprif- 
ing  and  romantic  fcenery,  we  will  fee  the  palace  and  the 
mailer  ioth  put  into  the  back-ground.       Now,  that  we 
may  form  a  clear  and  diilincl  notion  of  the  matter,  the 
palace,  and  the   fcenery,   we  muft   view   all  the  three 
pictures   alternately,  though  all  are   reprefented  in  eve- 
'  ry  one  of  them.     Juft  fo  it  is  in  Scripture.      Its  truths 
are  (o  fcattered,   and  vaiioufly  reprefented,  upon   fuch 
various  occafions,  for  fo  many  dillincl:  pur  poles,  that  we 
cannot  have  a  complete  view  of  any  one  of  them  with- 
ont  examining  the  whole  Bible.       They  are  fo  interwo- 
ven, and  have  fuch  a  connexion  and  mutual  dependence 
upon  each  other,  that  a  knowledge  of  one  truth  cannot 
thoroughly  be  obtained   without   a   pretty   general  ac- 
quaintance with  all  the  reft  *.       How  ablurd  is  it  then, 
to  expect  a  fyftem  or  formal  treatife  on  church  govern- 

*  I  am  fure  I  have  found  the  advantage  of  this  mode 
of  revelation  in  examining  this  fubject.  Had  it  been  me- 
thodicaHv  ^id  down  in  one  place,  ;.nd  been  'ccomparned 
with  no  difficulties,  I  would  have  been  deprived  or  much 
additional  knowledge,  which  1  obtained,  on  many,  points, 
in  my  iearch. 


ment !  If  the  greatelt  truths  of  Scripture  are  reveale  1 
in  this  manner,  how  unreafonable  is  it  to  expect  a  dif- 
ferent method  on  this  point  !  Yet  it  appears  to  me 
that  an  attentive  obferver  will  find  that  the  reafon  why 
many  conclude  there  is  no  form  of  church  govern- 
ment laid  down  in  Scripture,  is  becaufe  they  do  not  find 
afy/lem. 

b.  Some  are  led  to  think  that  there  is  no  com- 
plete model  intended  to  be  exhibited  in  the  New  Tef- 
tament,  becaufe  all  we  have  on  this  fubjecl  is  given  in- 
directly, and  as  it  were  unintentionally,  and  not  iuffi- 
ciently  and  fully  explained.  I  have  already  hinted  at 
the  reafon  why  the  fubjecl:  could  not  be  confidently 
handled  in  an  exprefs  and  copious  manner.  As  we  are 
no  where  known  in  Scripture,  but  in  the  peifon  of  the 
firiT  churches,  we  could  not  expect  a  direct  addrefs  on 
the  fubjecl  of  church  government  :  what  is  faid  to  them 
is  laid  to  us.  And  a<  it  would  be  abfurd  to  expecl;  that 
an  apoflle,  after  forming  a  church  in  any  place,  would, 
in  a  fubfequent  letter,  give  them  exprefs  directions  for 
the  formation  of  a  church,  feeing  this  was  already  done  j 
all  we  can  expecl  is  an  indirect,  and  as  it  were,  an  un- 
intentional allufion  to  what  was  done,  and  a  fcattered 
picture  of  their  church  order.  Ir.llead,  then,  of  being 
difappointed  at  this  mode  of  communication,  no  other 
can  we  reafonably  expect..  Indirect  hints,  incidental 
obfervations,  and  a  paffing  view  of  their  practice,  i*  all 
that  the  manner  of  revelation  can  admit.  The  know- 
ledge of  their  church  order  muft  neceffarily  be  obtain- 
ed from  paffages  where  the  apoftles  are  profeffedly  treat- 
ing of  fomething  elfe.  But  this  is  not  the  only  thing 
to  be  proved  in  this  manner.  The  chief  knowledge 
that  we  have  upon  many  other  points,  is  obtained  exact- 
ly in  this  indirect  and  circuitous  way.  A  diitinction  be- 
tween ordinary  and  extraordinary  officers  is  generally  ad- 
mitted ;  yet  the  exadt  boundaries  of  their  office  is  no 
where  profeffedly  and  exactly  treated.  A  (landing  mi- 
ril'try  is  generally  granted,  yet  the  chief  proofs  of  this 
muft  be  ob  -lined  from  incidental,  indirect,  ;»nd  as  it 
were,  unintentional  hints,  and  *he  example  of  the  a- 
poftolical  churches.  To  piove  the  truth  of  the  Scrip- 
H 


86 

tures  themfelves,  or  any  of  their  do&rines,  nothing 
more  is  neceflary  than  fufficient  evidence  o  convince 
the  humble  earneft  enquirer.  It  is  by  no  means  ne- 
ceflary to  filcnce  the  caviller,  and  divert  the  difobe- 
dient  of  every  pretext.  There  is  not  a  (ingle  doclrine 
of  revelation,  the  inveftigation  and  proof  of  which, 
is  not  accompanied  with  difficulties.  "  There  muft 
be  herefies,  that  they  which  ore  approved  may  be  made 
manifeft.11  If,  then,  there  are  difficulties,  even  with 
refpeft  to  truths  neceflary  to  falvation,is  it  rtrange  that 
there  fhould  be  more  in  matters  of  comparatively  lefs 
importance  ? 

But  though  the  fubjeft  is  no-  largely  explained  and 
direftly  inculcated,  the  fc  ittered  incidental  hints  we 
have,  when  united,  will  be  found  not  at  all  deficient  for 
the  puipofes  of  church  government.  Thty  will  be 
found  lb  complete,  that  a  church  of  Chrifl  will  not  be 
obliged  to  advance  a  Hep  but  on  lacred  ground.  If 
this  be  the  cale  I  would  afk,  what  more  do  people 
want  >  I  acknowledge,  that  this  mode  of  conveying  di- 
vine truth  does  not  fuit  thofe  who  enquire  under  the 
influence  of  a  worldly  fpnit  When  this  is  the  cafe, 
it  will  not  be  ft*. ange  it  the  Sciipfural  materials  (hould 
appear  extremely  fcanty,  and  oblcure  or  confufed.  He 
will  be  too  ready  to  think  hin  fell  jullifiable  tot  ike  the 
lid'"  of  worldly  interelt.  unlefs  the  glaTe  of  evidence 
be  fuch  that  it  is  impoffi  lie  to  refilt  it.  He  mull  be 
driven  to  duty  by  t^e  t  ur.ders  of  Sinai,  and  rot  con- 
tained by  the  gentle  voice  of  Chiilt,  when  he  Lys, 
11  He  that  loveth  me,  keepeth  my  commandments." 
But  we  fhould  not  afk,  like  Henry  IV.  of  France,  "  Is 
there  falvation  in  fuch  a  church  ?"  but  with  the  ;pof- 
tle  "  Lord  what  would'lt  thou  have  me  to  do  ?" 
lead)  to  perform  the  lenrt.  as  well  as  the  grearel*  of 
his  commandments.  We  rt>  mid  continually  hang  upon 
the  lips  of  our  Malier,  ready  with  the  alacrity  and 
alertnefs  of  an  an,  el.  to  perform  his  plenfure,  girl  of 
difcovering  it.  though  it  fhould  rob  us  of  our  property, 
Or  even  our  life.  Such  enquirers,  I  apprehend,  will, 
after  leilurelv  investigation,  have  no  need  to  complain 
of  a  want  of  Scripture  materials  on  this  fubjeft. 


S7 


CHAPTER  X. 


Charatfer  of  Church  Members — or  the  necejjity  of 
pure  Communion, 


I  have  now  ftated  my  views  of  church  government, 
which,  after  an  impartial  and  leifurely  learch,  I  have 
been  conftrained  to  embrace.  But  I  have  other  rea- 
fons  for  feparating  from  the  general  fynod,  which  ttill 
more  pungently  touch  my  confcience.  One  of  thefe  is 
the  continual  neceffity  1  would  be  under,  of  proftitut- 
ing  the  ordinances  of  Chriit  by  promiscuous  communion* 
I  ihall  therefore  devote  this  chapter  to  point  out  the 
chara&er  of  the  members  of  the  apoftolical  churches, 
and  prove  the  neceffity  of  pure  communion.  If  I  fuc- 
ceed,  it  will  be  evident,  that  1  cannot  confcientioufly 
remain  in  a  connexion  in  which  I  am  obliged  to  tranl- 
grtfs  fo  important  a  law  of  Chrift.  Even  were  I  itill 
a  friend  to  prefbyterian  government,  I  could  not  hold 
communion  wita  the  general  fynod,  nor  any  other  pref- 
byterian connexion  that  I  am  acquainted  with.  In  none 
of  them  that  I  know  of,  is  there  purity  of  communion. 
—  Many  of  them,  indeed,  have  raifed  very  high  human 
hedges  around  the  Lord's  table,  and  have  enjoined  very 
rigid  terms  of  communion  :  but  in  none  of  them,  I  be- 
lieve, is  credible  evidence  of  the  neiv  birth  the  'eft  of 
memberfhip.  The  gate  is  indeed  (hut  againft  the  open- 
ly profane,  but  the  decent  worldling  may  paTs  At 
the  same  time,  the  child  of  God  is  excluded,  if  he  can- 
not digeft  all  the  peculiarities  of  the  feft,  and  load  his 
foul  with  a  mafs  of  human  obligations.  If  I  am  mif- 
taken  with  reipeft  to  any  involved  in  this  charge,  I 
will  be  glad  to  retradt  my  cenfure,  upon  convincing 


information.  I  do  not  write  to  compliment,  neither  do 
I  write  to  expofe,  but  to  reform.  This  is  a  point  which 
I  know  miny  prefbyterians  will  not  difpute.  They  ac- 
knowledge its  defirablenefs,  but  doubt,  in  the  prefent 
ftate  of  the  church,  as  they  fpeak,  its  practicability. 
Nay,  all  who  exclude  any,  virtually  ackowledge  this 
principle.  For  if  they  exclude  one  fort  of  finners,  by 
xvhat  authority  do  they  admit  another  r  I  beg,  there- 
fore, that  prefbyterians  of  this  defcription  will  accom- 
pany me  through  this  chapter.  Though  they  are  able  to 
difprovc;  all  I  have  faid  on  the  fubjedf.  of  church  go- 
vernment, yet  if  I  can  convince  them,  of  the  finfulnefs 
of  admitting  to  communion,  any  but  the  credible  dil- 
ciples  of  Chrift,  and  to  perfuade  them  to  a£t  up  to 
their  convictions,  I  will  not  have  loft  my  labour.  I 
would  be  glad  indeed,  to  fee  any  of  the  prefbyterian 
connexions,  even  thus  far  reformed.  I  acknowledge,  I 
have  been  guilty  in  this  inltance,  hitherto,  and  am  per- 
iuaded,  that  nothing  has  contributed  fo  much  to  render 
my  labours  fo  unfruitful,  though  I  had  not  the  fame 
views  of  the  fubje6l  which  I  have  at  prefent.  I  look 
upon  promifcuous  communion  to  refemble  adultery — 
it  muft  be  viewed  by  a  jealous  God  with  the  utmoft  dif- 
pleafure.  What  is  the  reafon,  while  there  are  multi- 
plied feels  of  flnmingly  orthodox  prefbyterians  that 
darknefs  covers  oar  land,  and  grofs  darknefs  the  people  ? 
Is  the  fanlt  in  man  or  in  God  r  "  Behold  the  arm  of 
the  Lord  is  not  fhortened  that  he  cannot  lave,  nor  his 
ear  heavy,  that  he  cannot  hear,"''  &c. 

When  we  look  into  the  epiftles  for  the  character  of 
the  members  of  apoftolical  churches,  we  find  that  they 
were  considered  as  members  of  the  body  of  Chrift, 
I  Cor.  i.  2.  In  writing  to  the  church  at  Corinth  the 
.-<poftle  denominates  the  members  fanclified  in  Chrift 
Jefus,  called  to  be  faints.  Were  I  not  already  too  vo- 
luminous, I  would  quote  and  illuftrate  the  addreffes  and 
many  other  pafftges  of  the  ep;ftles  to  the  churches,  to 
fhew  the  character  of  the  members  of  the  apoftolical 
churches;  1  mull  be  contented  with  refeiringro  them, 
Horn.  i.  7.  2  Cor.  i.  1.  Eph.  i.  1.  Fhil.  i.  1.  Col.  i.  2. 
and  ii.  6.       1  Theff.  i.  1.      2  Theff.  i.  1.      1  Pc|.  i.  2. 


89 

2  Pet.  i.  r.      i  Cor.  vi.   rr,  19,  20.— x.  17.— xii.  27. 

I  I'licff.  ii.  13,  14.  I  Cor.  x.  16  17  l"hefe  paffages 
will  clearly  point  out  what  is  the  character  of  thofe  who 
ought  to  be  recongnized  as  church  members.  The 
church  at  Rome  is  commanded  to  receive  him  that  is 
ivtak  in  the  faith.  Now.  tl  is  fuppofes  that  they  were 
in  the  habit  of  judging  of  thofe  whom  they  admitted  to 
memberfhip  and  that  thofe  who  had  no  Jaiih  were  not  to 
be  received.  Foi  if  they  delibctattly  received  any  without 
evidence  of  faith,  there  could  be  no  propriety  in  com- 
manding them  to  receive  him  that  was  weak  in  Jaith, 
M  Give  not  that  which  is  holy  unto  do#s,"  is  as  much  a 
command  of  Chrift  as  "  thou  (halt  nor  kill  \n  and  what- 
evei  be  its  primary  meaning,  it  is  a  general  precept,  and 
will  hold  more  eminently  true  in  this  inftance  than  in  any 
other  1  am  acquainttd  with.  1  C01.  iii.  10, — 16.  is 
more  naturally  interpicted  of  the  admiffion  of  church 
members,  than  of  doctrines.  Both  the  preceding,  and 
fucceeding  conntxian  fix  it  to  this.  Christians,  not  doc- 
trines, are  the  lively  ftones  in  God's  building,  and  God's 
hufbindry.  His  temple  is  to  be  built  ufthefe  materials. 
It  is  not  any  dcclrine,  with  refpeel:  to  Chrift.,  that  i'  (aid 
to  be  the  foundation  ;  but  he  is  the  foundation  himfelf. 
New  members  might  be  added  to  apoltolical  churches, 
bur  new  do£t rines  could  not  be  lawfully  promulgated  In 
this  fenfe,  the  apofties  not  only  laid  the  foundation,  but 
finifhed  the  houfe.  There  are  neither  gold,  filver,  nor 
precious  ftones  now  remaining  to  be  built  upon  the  foun- 
dation of  theapoftolical  doctrines.  Butthe  gold,  filver  and 
precious  ftones,  beautifully  reprefent  converted  church, 
members,  who  are  not  injured  by  the  fire,  and  their  dif- 
ferent degrees  of  value  *.  All  are  valuable  ;  but  while 
fome  are  filver,  others  are  gold,  and  others  precious 
flones.  On  the  other  hand,  unconverted  church  mem- 
bers are  like  wood,  hay,  and  ftubble,  which  will  be  con- 
fumed  whenever  fire  is  applied.  The  fire  of  temptation 
and  peifecution  will  try  every  church,  during  which,  un- 
converted members  will  fhew  their  combultible   nature, 

*  This    interptetation   is   ftrengthened   from    llaiah  liv. 

I I  —  >3i  in  which  church  members  are  repreftnted  under  fi- 
n.ilar  figures. 

K3 


and  be  confumed.     At  leaft  the  fire  of  the  great  judg-  ' 
ment  will  try  the    houfe  of  what  fort  of  materials  it    is 
built,  and  the  builders  will  either  have  lofs  or  gain,  ac- 
cording to  the   refult  of  the  trial.      "  And  he   himfelf 
fhall  be  faved.  yet  fo  as   by  fire,"  with  the   utmnft  dif- 
ficulty, as  a  man  efcaping  from  the  midtt  of  the  flames. 
He  being  a  fervant  of  Cbrirt  hirr.felf,  (hall  certainly  have 
an  entrance,  but  not  an  abundant  entrance   into  heaven. 
Yea,  and  very  probably,  when  the  church    is  trying,  by 
means  of  the  fire  of  temptation  and  ptrfecution,  although 
he  may  be  pitferved  from  filling,  he  w  ill  be  "  faved  by 
tire."      Heavy  trials  and  afflictions  may  be  laid  upon  him, 
;md  the  Lord  may  chaftife  him  fore,  though  he  may  not 
give  him  over  to  death.     He  may  be  forely  fcorched  in 
the  fire  of  affliction,  although  he   be   not  burnt  up.      If 
this  be  the  true   interpretation  of  the  p-ffage,  which   is 
adopted  by  fome  of  the  belt  commentators,  and  which  I 
haveaiw;<)s   thought   the   molt    natural,  frcm    the    firft 
time  I  heard  it  fuggefled.   there    is    an  awful  Itffon  in  it 
to  every  church  ruler,  and  to  every  church  member,  not 
to  hazard  the  peace  and  comfort  ot  their  own  fouls  here, 
nor  the  lofs  of  a  part  of  their  reward  hereafter,  by  build- 
ing God's  houfe  with  combuftible  materials  ;    admitting 
unconverted  tinners  to  member  (hip.     But  the  character 
of  church  members  is  clearly  determined  from  Act  ii.  47. 
'•  And  the    Lord   added  to    the   church    daily  fuch    as 
fhould   be  faved,"   which   is   literally   tranfLted    thus: 
*    The  Lord  added  the  faved  daily  to  the  cnurch."      It 
does  not  meat:  that  the    Lord  added  to   the  church  uni- 
verfal  by  converfion,  though  that  is  previoufly  fuppofed  j 
but  that  he  added  fuch  as  were  converted  to  the  church 
at  Jerufalem.      As  loon  as  finners   are   converted,  they 
are  faved,  and  none  but   the  favtd  were   added  to   the 
church  at  Jerufalem.      It  was  the  Lord  added  them,   be- 
cause  the   terras  of  adm;ffion   were   not   the  prudential 
regulations  of  the  church,  but  the  Scripture  evidence  of 
their  being  faved.     The  church  was  only  God's  instru- 
ment.    "  The  Lord  faved  them,"  and  the  church  feeing 
this,  received  them. 

When  we  cenfider  the  character  of  the  generality  who 
fit  down  at  the  Lord's  table,  and  then  read  that    awful 


91 

afieveration  (1  Cor.  xi.  27.)  it  is  enough  to  make  the 
hind  to  tremble  which  diltributes  among  them  the  em- 
blems of  the  body  and  blood  of  Chrift.  Indeed,  I  am 
really  aftonilhed  that  my  confcience  could  ever  have 
borne  it.  Ah  !  the  guilt  of  profeffing  Chriftians,  in 
this  fingte  inftance.  If  every  unworthy  communicant 
is  a  murderer,  yea  a  murderer  of  the  Lord  Chrilr^what 
muft  be  the  guilt  of  all  fe&s  of  prelhyterians  ;  Is  it  any 
wonder  that  the  labours  of  faithful  individuals  among 
them,  mould  be  in  a  great  meafure  unprodu&ive.  If  the 
murder  of  a  man  like  ourfelves  be  a  crime  fo  heinous,  in 
the  eftimation  of  God  and  man,  how  aggravated  a  crime 
is  the  murder  of  the  Son  of  God  ?  What  countlefs  thou- 
fands  of  ftupid  finners  are  peimitted  ralhly  to  embrue 
their  hands  in  the  blood  of  Chrift  ?  Dreadful  fentence  ! 
':  Whoever  (hall  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup  of 
the  Lord  unworthily,  fhall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  the  Lord."  Now,  how  much  more  aggravat- 
ed is  the  guilt  of  the  church  that  admits  fuch  memoers, 
and  the  paftor  that  admintfters  this  ordinance  to  them  ? 
1  know,  indeed,  that*  they  ufually  hold  themfelves  ex- 
cufed,  by  faithfully  warning  them  of  their  danger,  and 
thus  laying  their  blood  upon  their  own  heads.  I  his 
indeed  was  my  own  refuge.  I  wifhed  to  perfuade  my- 
lelf,  that  if  I  was  faithful  to  point  out  the  characters 
of  fuch  as  were  unworthy,  in  a  clear  and  explicit  man- 
ner, and  fervently  warn  them  of  their  dinger,  that  then 
I  was,  innccent.  But  I  now  clearly  lee  that  this  re- 
fuge was  untenable,  and  have  plainly  told  my  people, 
that  I  would  no  more  adminifier  th»t  ordinance  among 
them,  in  the  fame  promifcucus  manner  than  I  would 
dtfcer.d  from  the  pulpit  with  a  fword  in  my  hand  to  de- 
ft roy  them.  I  have  no  ftandard'  but  the  Bible,  and  am 
ready  to  change  any  erroneous  fentiment  or  couduc>.  as 
foon  as  I  difcover  it.  We  are  frequently  mitlaken  for 
want  of  having  made  any  matter  the  fubje£t  of  particu- 
lar consideration.  But  if  any  mininer  of  a  feeling  coo- 
'fcience,  can  allow  himfelf  in  the  promifcuous  admmi- 
ftration  of  this  ordinance,  after  his  attention  has 
been  called  to  the  fubjeft,  and  having  made  it  a  matter 
of  prayer  and  inveftigktion,  I  am  really  aftonilhed. 
The  apology  of  faithfully  warning,  will  not  ftand  even 


92 

in  human  judgment,  far  lei's  in  the  awful  day  of  God. 
If  I  put  a  fword  into  the  hand  of  an  angry  madman,  it 
will  be  no  excufe  for  me  that  1  have  warned  him  not  to 
kill  the  perfon  againft  whom  he  is  enraged.  I  might 
have  known  he  would  not  have  lillened  to  my  counfel. 
So  if  I  put  the  emblems  of  Chrift's  body  and  blood  in- 
to the  hands  of  impenitent  finners,  I  may  warn  and 
warn,  they  are  mr.d.  and  will  not  tnke  warning,  but  ru(h 
upon  their  ruin.  Suppcfe  there  is  a  madman  (landing 
in  an  apothecary's  (hop,  while  the  apothecary  is  mixing 
up  a  dofe  of  poifon  in  a  liquor  of  which  the  madman  is 
very  fond — the  mandman  alks  for  a  drink  of  it — the 
apothecary  tells  him  there  is  poifon  in  it  —  and  tint  it 
will  furely  kill  him  if  he  drink  it — the  madman  infills 
to  have  it,  alleging  that  there  is  no  fear,  and  that  he  can 
drink  it  without  any  injury — the  apothecary  ftill  aflerts 
thar  it  will  kill  him  if  he  will  drii,k  it  j  but  if  he  per- 
lifts  in  d«  firing  to  have  it,  he  will  give  it  him,  rather 
than  difoblige  him — the  madman  re-.ches  for  it — 
the  apothecary  gives  it,  taking  the  madman,  and  thofe 
prefent,  and  God  himfelf  to  witnefs.  that  he  is  clear 
of  his  blood,  for  he  hath  faithfully  warned  him— t;  e 
madman  diinks  —  and  dies.  Reader,  were  you  or.e  of 
the  jury  to  try  the  apothecary,  would  you  clear  him' 
Will  the  Lord  clear  him  in  his  judgment  ?  And  in  what 
does  the  apothecary  differ  from  the  pallor,  who  puts  the 
emblems  of  Child's  body  and  blood  into  the  har.ds  of 
impenitent  finners  ?  In  nothing  but  in  the  degree  of 
their  guilt.  The  latter  is  the  more  guilty,  inafmuch 
as  the  ihedding  of  the  blood  of  Chnft  is  a  greater  crime 
than  the  (bedding  of  the  blood  of  a  meie  man  ;  and  in 
as  much  as  the  murder  of  a  foul  is  a  greater  crime,  than 
the  murder  of  the  body.  It  is  no  excufe  that  gieat  as 
the  crime  of  unworthy  partaking  of  the  Lord's  fupper 
is,  it  is  neverthclefs  pardonable.  This  is  altogether 
with  God,  whether  he  will  grant  pardon  and  repentance 
or  not  •,  and  although  the  individual  is  afterwards  par- 
doned, the  pallor's  crime  is  not  thereby  mitigated.  I 
have  applied  it  particularly  to  the  paftor,  but  every 
church  member  is  guilty,  and  will  be  accountable  j 
for  it  is  not  to  one  or  a  few,  but  to  the  whole  church, 
that  Chiift  has  committed  the  difcipline  of  his  houfe. 


93 

I  believe  that  debarring  or  fencing  the  tables,  and 
giving  of  tokens,  like  all  other  human  expedients  in  re- 
ligion, have  been  of  the  raoft  feiious  injury  *.  It  is  a 
bungling  expedient  to  fupply  the  want  of  Scripture  dif- 
cipline,  and  an  apoflolically  conilituted  church.  If  none 
bat  thofe  who  are  credibly  Chriftians,  were  admitted  to 
church  memberlhip,  what  occalion  would  there  be  for 
tokens  of  admiflion,  or  debarring.  They  will  take  their 
feats  around  Chrift's  table,  as  naturally  as  children  will 
feat  themfelves  unalked  around  the  table  of  their  earth- 
ly father.  Who  dare  debar  any  fuch  ?  And  who  dare  in- 
vite any  other  ?  The  cuil  om  of  debarring,  under  the  ap- 
pearance of  excluding  the  unworthy,  is,  in  reality,  only  a 
pretext  for  admitting  worldly  men,  without  feeming  to 
fhare  in  their  guilt.  Church  rulers  dare  not  profefledly  ad- 
mit unregenerate  men,  from  fear  of  offending  God,  and 
they  dare  not  candidly  deny  them  admiflion,  from  fear 
of  men.  They  have  therefore  found  out  a  way  to  com- 
promife  the  matter  between  God  and  the  world,  by 
fencing  the  tables.  Thus,  they  avoid  giving  individual 
offence,  and  driving  unregenerate  men  away  from  their 
fociety,  and  imagine  themfelves  clear  as  to  the  crime  of 
proftituting  the  ordinance  of  Chrift.  I  afk,  was  ever 
this  mean  found  effectual  to  preferve  purity  of  commu- 
nion ?   I  am  fure  1  have  tried  it  in  the  molt  awful  man- 

*  Every  one  who  receives  a  token  h*s  the  folemn  de- 
claration of  cliurch  rulers,  that  they  confider  them  as  real 
Chriftians  For  if  it  is  granted  that  none  but  teal  Chiiftians 
have  a  right  to  this  ordinance,  of  what  is  this  a  token,  if 
not  of  their  fitnefs,  at  lead  in  the  eftimation  of  thofe  from 
whom  they  receive  it  ?  Now,  if  church  rulers  give  i  token 
to  any  whom  they  do  not  upon  good  evidence  confider  to 
be  Chriftians,  they  are  guilry  of  the  moft  awful  deceiving 
of  finners  that  can  be  imagin.d.  They  lead  them  with  a 
blind  upon  their  eyes  to  the  brink  of  a  precpice,  and  tell 
them,  as  they  are  failing,  that  they  are  tumbling  into  per- 
dition. T  befeech  thofe  Chrifliar.s  who  are  engaged  in  this 
murderous  bulinefs.  to  flop  and  reflect  ;  to  weigh  this  with 
ftrioufnefs  and  prayer.  I  believe  that  there  are  many  who 
give  tokens  with  a  trembling  heart,  and  a  fmiting  confcience. 
.Let  t  em  beware  ielt  confcience,  by  the  repetition  of  guilt, 
become  callous  and  feared.  Their  ftate  is  awful,  if  it  has 
ceafed  to  fmite. 


94 

ner  in  my  power,  and  I  do  not  know  that  it  was  in  any 
degree  effectual.  O^ten.  very  often,  the  hardened  una- 
wakened  linner  will  let  ail  pa's  through  his  ear  as  the 
path  of  an  arrow  through  the  air,  while  the  weak  and 
timid  Chruiian  \ill  take  what  is  fiid  as  againll  himfelf, 
and  be  dilcouraged.  indeed,  they  know  very  little  of 
the  human  heart,  who  think  that  an  unawakened  (inner 
will  take  fuch  a  waning  I  hive  laboured  feveral  hours 
with  individuals,  without  convincing  tnem  of  thtii  dan- 
ger. Till  the  Lord  open  the  eyes  of  their  underftand- 
ing,  they  will  dill  have  lume  refuge  of  lies.  How  then 
could  it  De  expelled  to  prevail  with  a  multitude,  in  a 
few  minutes  fpeaking,  betore  the  administration  of  the 
fupper  ?  1  demand  th.it  thofe  who  praftile  it  will  pro- 
duce me  either  prectpt  or  example,  either  expeffed  or 
implied,  for  debarring  and  tokens  of  admiflion  at  the 
Lord's  lupper.  If  this  cannot  be  produced,  1  aigue 
that  that  church  which  cannot  maintain  apollolical 
purity,  without  huonn  expedients  is  not  apoftolical- 
ly  conllituted.  When  I  fee  a  wall  fupported  by  a 
buttrefs,  I  judge  it  has  not  a  good  foundation.  When 
I  fee  a  human  invention  tmpl  jyed  to  prop  an  ordi- 
nance of  Chrift,  i  form  a  fnnilar  judgment. 

But  not  only  is  the  neceffity  of  pure  communion 
proved  from  the  chancer  of  the  members  of  the  apo- 
llolical churches,  and  direct  Scripture  precept  —  the 
very  model  of  the  apollolical  churches  could  not  be 
otherwife  preferved.  (Thrift's  laws  are  not  at  all  cal- 
cu!  ted  to  govern  the  devil's  fuhjefts.  Spiritual  laws 
will  take  no  hold  of  carnal  men.  if  there  are  unrege- 
nerate  members  admitted  and  retained,  they  will  throw 
all  into  contufion.  They  will  ltop  the  equability  of 
the  ciiurch's  motion,  and  whenever  the  fire  of  tempta- 
tion begins  to  burn,  the  houie  will  fall  with  a  cr^lh  in 
the  midlt  of  the  flames.  I'  they  are  not  excluded,  a 
majority  mull  indantly  be  luoltituted  for  unanimity  >  hu- 
nun  laws  and  hum  in  fandioos  mull  be  luollituted 
for  tliofe  of  the  New  Fellament.  From  one  Hep  to 
another,  they  will  arrive  to  a  full  grown  antichrill,  and 
the  more  heads  he  will  have,  the  more  monftrous  will 
he  be. 


95 

I  may  add,  there  are  ordinances  of  Chrift  which  can- 
not be  attended  to,  if  ftrict  purity  of  communion  is  not 
preferved,  i  Cor.  vii.  z. — That  civil  difputes  fhould  be 
determined  by  the  church,  is  an  apoftolical  ordinance, 
for  the  neglect  of  which,  the  Corinthians  are  feverely 
reproved.  But  this  is  an  ordinance  which  no  church 
can  ever  obferve,  if  they  admit  unregenerate  men  to 
memberihip.  Such  petfons  will  yield  to  the  deciiion  of 
the  church,  if  it  be  in  their  favour  ;  but  if  it  be  againft 
them,  they  will  (hew  little  refpedt  to  the  determination. 
Neither  does  the  apoftie's  reafoning  hold  good  with  ref- 
pecl:  to  fuch  as  judge,  for  they  will  not  " judge  the  world.'''' 

.  Something  like  this,  may,  in  fmaller  matters,  be  attempt- 
ed in  a  mixed  communion,  among  a  few  individuals,  ge- 
nerally poor,  and  not  able  to  maintain  law  fuits,  having 
little  civil  intercourse  ;  but  can  never  effe&ually  take 
place  in  all  cafts,  except  purity  of  communion  be  ftricl- 

ly  adhered  to. 

Mutual  exhortation  in  church  meetings  *,  is  another 
apoltolical  ordinance,  I  Cor.  xiv.  29.— I  ThefT.  v.  n. 
Let  any  prefbyterian  congregation  give  this  liberty  to 
private  individuals,  and  they  will  fcon  fee  the  houfe 
in  flames.  The  wood,  the  hay,  and  the  ftubble,  would 
inftantly  Like  fire,  and  it  would  be  altogether  impoflible 
to  preferve  my  fort  of  order  or  decorum.  This  would 
fhiver  them,  as  a  cedar  in  Lebmon  is  fplintered  by  the 
lightning.  None  but  the  children  of  Chrift  could  bear 
or  improve  fuch  a  privilege.  —  Now,  that  church  which 
cannot  bear  an  apoltolical  inftitution,  is  not  apoftoiically 
conftituted. 

*  As  hypocrites  will  occafiona'ly  find  admittance  into  the 
•churches  of  Chrift,  fuch  otrlinances  as  thefe,  feem  vilely 
calculated  to  detedt  them.  That  which  appears  to  worldly 
churches  the  mot  exceptionable  m  thefe  oidinances,  is,  in 
reality,  their  great  perfection,  and  prove  their  heavenly 
birth.  Thev  aff>rd  an  expeditious  way  to  difcover,  and  ex- 
clude carnal  proteffors  They  aie  alio  ufefut  to  difcipline 
the  true  foldiers  of  Jefus  ;  they  grind  off  their  afperities, 
accuflom  them  to  forbearance,  exercii'e  their  patience,  and  . 
improve  all  their  graces. 


96 


CHAPTER  XT. 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

Mant  who  look  upon  purity  of  communion  as  a  de- 
firable  thing,  and  go  a  certain  length  in  effecting  it.  do 
not  aim  at  a  ltricTt  feparation,  apprehending  the  attempt 
to  be  euher  fruitlefs  or  dangerous. —  Some  go  lo  far  as 
to  fhield  thtmfelves  under  Scripture  example  :  1  was 
once  of  this  number  myfelf.  I  fhall  therefore  employ 
this  chapter  in  anfwering  the  objections  ufually  alleged 
againlt  any  attempt  to  effedt  a  pure  church. 

Objection  I.  It  is  faid,  "  We  cannot  know  men's 
"  hearts  ;  if  they  are  fober  and  decent  in  their  external 
"  conduct,  and  acknowledge  their  belief  of  the  orthodox 
"  dodtrines,  we  can  go  no  farther." 

This  objection,  if  there  was  any  thing  in  it,  would  go 
to  (hew  that  Chrift  has  given  a  command  to  the  churches* 
which  it  would  not  be  in  their  power  to  put  into  prac- 
tice. If  Chrilt  has  faid,  "  Give  not  that  which  is  holy 
unto  dogc,"  be  fuppofes  we  are  able  to  diftinguifh  the 
perfons  whom  he  intends,  otherwife  his  advice  is  unim- 
portant. A  phyfician  cannot  look  into  the  inner  part 
of  the  human  body,  to  fee  what  is  the  difeafe  of  his  pa- 
tient, yet  he  judges  of  this,  by  the  fymptoms  and  ap- 
pearances he  beholds.  Jult  fo  are  we  to  judge  of  the 
human  heart.  If  the  fountain  be  fait,  fo  will  the  ltreams  ; 
if  the  ftreams  are  frefh,  we  may  judge  that  the  fountain 
has  alfo  been  made  frefh.  Our  Lord  tells  us  theft  a  tree 
is  known  by  its  fruits.  If  there  is  faith  in  the  heart, 
thei  t  will  be  obedience  in  the  life.  If  t^ere  be  fpiritual 
life,  there  will  be  fome  fymptoms  of  it.  The  true  pe- 
nitent will  bring  forth  fruits  meet  for  repentance.    The 


man  who  is  born  of  the  Spirit,  will  know  the  tilings  of 
the  Spirit,  and  will  lead  a  fpirkual  life.  If  he  be  renew- 
ed in  the  image  of  him  that  created  him,  he  will  evi- 
dence this  by  his  knowledge,  righteoufnefs,  and  holinels. 
If  he  loves  Chrift,  he  will  keep  his  commandments.  I£ 
his  heart  is  with  God,  his  perfon  will  not  ufually  be 
found  in  the  company  of  the  wicked.  If  be  loves  him 
that  begat,  be  will  alfo  love  them  that  are  begotten, 
and  prefer  their  company  and  converfation  to  that  of 
all  others.  In  (hort,  if  there  be  a  real  change  of  heart, 
it  will  manifeft  itfelf  in  the  life.  In  fome  inftances,  avi- 
fing  from  particular  circumftances,  there  may  be  diffi- 
culty ;  and  if,  after  much  prayer  and  neceffary  invefti- 
gation,  a  church  is  deceived  in  any  inftance,  it  is 
not  guilty.  I  dare  fay  if  the  members  of  a  church 
would  take  as  much  trouble  in  this,  as  they  do  in  giving 
out  their  money  upon  intereft,  they  would  feldom  be 
deceived.  They  are  not  apt,  out  of  exceffive  chariry, 
to  hazard  it  with  a  man  of  a  merely  fpecious  appearance, 
till  they  enquire  minutely  into  his  ciicumftances  and 
character. 

Obj.  2.  I  have  heard  fome  allege,  "  that  if  they 
"  would  go  to  fuch  ftii£tnefs,  they  could  admit  very 
"  few." 

I  perfeclly  agree  with  them  in  this  fer.timent  :  but 
this  objection  is  not  an  alleviation,  but  a  dreadful  ag- 
gravation of  the  crime.  Such  paftors  are  building  a 
Babel,  not  a  temple  of  God.  When  their  work  will 
be  tried  by  the  fire  of  the  great  day,  it  will  be  burned 
up,  and  they  (hall  fuftain  a  dreadful  lofs  •,  and  be  faved, 
admitting  they  are  the  difciples  of  Chrift,  with  the  ut- 
moft  difficulty.  But  this  is  not  the  remedy,  but  the  very 
caufe  of  their  fewnefs.  If  a  church  is  once  formed  upon 
the  apoftolical  model,  and  walking  in  the  commandments 
and  ordinances  of  the  gofpel,  it  is  impoffible,  but  they 
will  increafe.  Though  at  firft  there  (hould  be  no  more 
than  a  dozen,  the  Lord  will  be  adding  daily  to  them, 
fuch  as  are  faved.  The  prefence  of  Chrift  (hall  be  with 
them,  and  continuing  in  prayer,  they  (hall  be  multi- 
plied j    for  whatever  two  of  them  agiee  in  ajking,  they 


9S 

ftnll  receive.  I  am  convinced,  from  experience,  that 
this  h  the  cvtfe.  Since  I  ceafed  to  prollitute  the  Lord's 
fupper  at  home  and  abroad,  rry  labours  have  been  moie 
vilibly  blelled,  and  I  have  had  more  evidence  of  a  work, 
of  grace  going  on.  than  I  had  in  the  whole  five  years 
of  my  minillry  ;  and  I  am  convinced  that  if  a  gofpel 
church  is  formed  amongft  us.  and  ruled  by  the  laws  of 
Chrift,  we  (haii  have  ilill  more  promifing  profpecls. 
But  be  this  2s  it  may,  as  to  rayfelf,  I  hope  I  would  not 
again  adrniniiter  the  Lord's  fupper  in  the  fame  promif- 
cuous  way,  for  any  earthly  confideration. 

Obj.  3.  It  is  faid,  that  "  this  fort  of  ftrictnefs  wiU 
"  drive  finners  away  from  the  gofpel  altogether,  and 
M  therefore  will  defeat  its  own  end." 

What  a  pity  that  Cbriit  had  not  the  benefit  of  the 
advice  of  thefe  fage  counfellors  !  he  would  not  have  gi- 
ven a  command  fo  contrary  to  his  own  intention.  Such 
objectors  may  have  an  othodox  creed,  but  the  objection 
arifes  out  of  prefumption  and  unbelief.  Not  to  mention 
that  the  reje&ion  of  unregenerate  perfons,  is  often  over- 
ruled to  their  converfiou.  our  bnfinefs  is  to  obey  God, 
and  le^ve  events  to  himftlf  Have  we  a  greater  inte- 
reft,  or  are  we  more  heartily  concerned  in  enlarging  his 
church,  than  he  is  himfelf  ?  He  h?th  the  hearts  of  all 
men  in  his  hands,  and  he  turneth  them  as  rivers  of  wa- 
ters. He  can  make  the  mull  violent  enemies,  the  moil 
devoted  friends  of  his  gofpel,  whenever  he  pltales.  It 
he  fays,  •'  Saul,  StuI,  why  perfecuteft  thoj  me  r"  the 
anfwer  would  be,  "  Lord,  what  wilt  thou  have  me  to 
do  ?  Every  human  invention  to  enlarge  and  fupport 
the  church  of  Chrill.  will  not  onlv  utterly  prove  abor- 
tive, but  generally  will  hhve  a  tendency  directly  the  re- 
verfe  of  what  is  propofed.  The  great  encouragement 
given  to  the  heathen  tn  renounce  their  re!i_'if  :\  buied 
Chrifthnity  in  *  heap  of  ru'tnim.  in  the  time  ot  Conilan- 
tine.  And  in  everv  age  the  admiffion  of  impure  mem- 
bers, to  make  a  partv  refpec"lable  from  their  numbers, 
has  had  'he  word  eff<  fts  While  the  life  of  thofe  that 
are  fpiritual  is  almoft  extiuguifhed,  the  unregenerate 
become  fecured  and  hardened,.     Nothing  can  tend  more 


99 

effectually  to  retard   the   progrefs  of  the   gofpel,   and 
keep  the  eyes  of   the   multitude    continually    blinded, 
than  to  give  them    the   Chriliian  name   and    privileges, 
whilft  they  are  Mill  the  fervnnts  of  Satan.     They  think 
they  are   fafe,  and   believe   they  are   Chriflians,  though 
not  k>  good  as  fome  others.    If  their  minifter  is  fo  faith- 
ful as   to  lay  open  their  character   in   public,  and  (hew 
them  their   danger,  they  will  either  (huffle  it  off  upon 
their  neighbour,  or  apologife  to  themfelves  for  their  own 
conduft.       Thofe  who   are   p.ccuftomed   to   examine  the 
hopes  of  fi oners,  will  find   that  admiffion  to  what  they 
Call  Chriftian  privileges,  is   a   very  prevalent  ground  of 
hope.      If  all  the  churches  of  Chrift  were  to  treat  the 
world  as  heathen?,  till  they  are  born  again,  it  would  be 
a  likely  mean  in  the  hand  of  the    Spirit   to   roufe  them 
to  inquiry,  and  lead   them  to   repentance.      Even  thofe 
wY->  are  in  the  habit  of  refuting  admiffion  to  perfons  of 
a  fcandnlous  character,  very  frequently  do  it  in  an  impro- 
per manner.      They  ground  their  tefufal,  not  upon  their 
w^nt  of  conversion,  but  their  irregularities,  or  their  not 
fubmitting  to  rules.      This  tends   to   miflead  the  (inner, 
and  keep  him  ignorant  of  his  real  flate  ;  whereas,  if  he 
were  faithfully  told  that  his  non-adraiflion  was  the  con- 
fequence  of  his    want  of  the  new  birth,  and  not  of  the 
ftr.mened  rules  of   a  party,  he  would  be  more  likely  to 
receive  it  with  benefit,  and  even  lei's  irritation.     Often 
the    minifter  will  throw   the   blame    upon   the  fefiion, 
and  they  again  upon  their  rules,  from  a  cowardly  difpo- 
fition,  left  they  (hould  give  offence.     Thus  the   perfon 
is  led  to  believe  that  the  fault   lies  more   in  the  ftrait- 
nefs  of  the   rules,  thin  in  himfelf.      The  placing  of  his 
ad  mi  ill  on  or  rejection  upon  his  difcharge  of  certain  ex- 
ternal duties,  has   the   fame  mifchievous  effect.     He  is 
led  to  look  upon   this,  not   as   an  evidence  of  his   ftate, 
but  as  forming  his  title  \o  heaven.     One  thing  I  would 
afk  at  thofe  who  make  this  objection  ;    let  them  anfwer 
it  candidlv  to  their  own  confeience.      Whether  are  you 
more  afraid  that  this  would  leffen  the  church  of  Chrift, 
or  ike  Jlipend  ?     Whether  are  you  more  afraid  of  injur- 
ing the  caufe  of  Chrift,  or  the  credit  of  your  party  .* 

Obj.  4.     It  is  pleaded  in  defence  of  promifcuous  com* 


100 

munion,  "  that  Judas  was  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table." 
Judas  was  once  a  pillar  upon  which  I  thought  I  could 
lafely  reft  my  defence  ;  but  fince  I  have  more  maturely 
and  impartially  confidered  the  matter,  I  have  entirely 
given  that  up.  We  are  never  in  a  likely  way  to  obtain 
truth  as  long  as  we  are  fearching  for  a  juftification  of 
our  own  conducl,  rather  than  the  mind  of  the  Spirit. 
I  am  afraid  that  there  are  many  who  examine  this  que- 
ition  in  this  temper.  A  drowning  m3n  will  catch  at 
any  twig  before  he  will  fink.  Thus  many,  overwhelm- 
ed by  pofitive  Scripture  precept,  perhaps  producing 
fome  qualms  of  confcience,  catch  at  Judas  to  keep  them 
above  water.  They  do  not  fee  any  thing  to  extricate 
themfelves  from  their  difficulty,  and  becaufe,  in  their 
prefent  fituation,  they  cannot  comply,  they  too  eafily 
impofe  upon  themfelves,  as  to  the  fin  of  fetting  the  word 
of  God  at  variance  with  itfelf.  There  is  certainly  a 
difficulty  in  determining  whether  Judas  was,  or  was  not, 
prefent  at  the  inftitution  of  the  fupper.  It  would  ap- 
pear to  me,  from  the  molt  impartial  examination  of  the 
gofpels  which  record  the  relation,  that  he  was  not.  We 
know  Scripture  cannot  contradict  itfelf  ;  and  when  it 
feems  to  do  fo,  that  analyfis  muft  be  admitted,  which  is 
moft  conformable  to  the  general  tenor  of  the  whole.  If, 
then,  there  are  innumerable  paffages  to  prove  the  duty 
of  pure  communion,  and  if  the  prefence  of  Judas  at  the 
fupper  be  contrary  to  this,  that  paffage  which  feems  to 
fay  he  was,  muft  be  underftood  fo  as  to  agree  with  that 
which  pofitively,  or  even  apparently  fays  he  was  not. 
1  think  alfo  that  Luke's  account  can  more  eafily  be  ex- 
plained in  confillency  with  John's,  than  John's  in  confil- 
tency  with  the  order  of  the  narration  of  Luke.  The 
inverfion  of  order  in  the  narration  of  fa£b,  is  no  lingular 
occurrence  in  the  gofpels ;  but  John  ftates  the  facT  po- 
fitively, circumftantiaily,  and  minutely.  John  xiii.  30. 
"  He  then  having  received  ihefop*,  went  immediately 
<jut."  To  make  Luke  agree  with  this,  we  have  nothing 
to  do  but  what  muft  be  done  in  many  other  cafes,  to 
fuppofe  an  inverfion  of  order  in  the  narration.  But 
this  I  mention,  rather  to  reconcile  the   evangeliftf,  than 

*  This  was  in  eating  the  pafLiver. 


101 

(To  fupport  my  argument  in  the  point  under  debate.  I 
do  not  think,  that  in  order  to  prove  the  duty  of  pure 
communion,  there  is  any  necelfity  to  exclude  Judas  from 
the  firft  fupper.  What  was  Judas  ?  He  was  a  poiiihed 
hypocrite.  What  is  a  hypocrite  ?  Not  a  man  who  pre- 
tends to  be  religious,  figns  an  oithodox  creed,  and  leads 
a  heterodox  lite,  but  a  man  to  all  human  appearance  a 
real  Ciiriftian,  and  for  a  time  walking  as  one,  though 
in  heart  and  in  the  fight  of  God  an  impenitent  tinner. 
Such  wis  Judas.  There  was  not  a  more  plaufible  cha- 
racter among  the  apollles  than  this  very  man.  None 
of  his  brethien  fufpedted  him  more  than  themfelves.— 
Even  when  our  Lord  declared  that  one  of  them  fhould 
betray  him,  their  language  was  not,  "  Lord,  is  it  Judas  *"' 
but,  "  Lord,  is  it  I  ?"  Now  luch  characters  might  be 
in  any  church  without  the  imalleft  blame  being  attach- 
able to  either  church  rulers,  or  church  members.  If 
the  church  receives  them  as  real  Chriftians,  it  is  guilt- 
lefs,  though  they  are  like  Judas.  This,  however,  is  no 
apology  for  thofe  who  admit  carnal  men,  who  difcover 
no  evidence  of  convtrfion,  nay  frequently  of  whom  they 
have  no  hopes  at  all.  It  is  argued,  that  though  Judas 
was  a  hypocrite,  yet  that  our  Lord  knew  him  to  be  fuch. 
A  fddl-moft  unqueftionable  ;  but  our  Lord's  omnifcience 
is  no  rule  of  conducl  for  us,  nor  did  he  aft  according  to 
ic  in  many  other  cafes.  He  had  various  and  important 
reafons  for  choofing  this  hypocrite  to  the  apoftlefhip, 
and  the  fame  he  might  have  had  for  allowing  him  to 
take  his  feat  at  his  fupper.  Our  Lord,  by  afting  as  the 
adminiftrator  of  this  ordinance,  had  no  need  to  avail 
himfelf  of  his  omnifcience,  by  forbidding  Judas  to  par- 
take ;  becaufe  in  this  he  could  have  been  no  example 
to  us,  as  we  bad  not  the  fame  means  of  detecting  hypo- 
crites. Befides,  he  might  defign  to  (hew  us,  that  if 
fuch  crma£fers  as  Judas  would  afterwards  get  admiffiou 
into  any  of  his  churches,  they  would  be  blamelefs.  The 
guilt,  in  this  matter,  is  not  in  receiving  hypocrites,  but 
in  retaining  them,  after  they  difcover  their  true  charac- 
ter. Judas  the  hypocrite  might  be  a  church  member, 
but  Judas  the  betrayer  never  was,  nor  could  be.  Grant- 
ing every  thing,  then,  that  the  abettors  of  impure  com- 
munion themlelves  can  demand  from  the  cafe  of  Judas, 
13 


102 

to  what  does  it  nmount  ?  that  a  hypocrite  may  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  Lord's  table  without  fin  in  the  church. 
Will  any  fay  that  becaufe  Chrilt  knew  this  man  to  be  an 
hypocrite,  that  therefore  we  may  admit  pcrfons  whom 
ive  know  to  be  hypocrites  ;  if  we  know  them  to  be  hy- 
pocrites, then  they  are  no  longer  hypocrites  ;  ior  we 
cannot  know  this  as  Chrift  knew  it,  by  looking  into 
their  hearts,  but  from  their  difcovering  this  by  their 
lives  and  converfation.  The  cafe  of  Judas  cinnot  fairly 
he  drawn  any  farther.  Btfidts,  if  it  is  alleged  to  jufti- 
fy  the  admitTion  of  members  who  give  evidence  that 
they  are  not  partakers  of  the  grace  of  the  gofpel,  it  will 
let  Chtilt  the  mailer,  and  Paul  the  fervant  at  variance. 
The  latter  pofitively  commands  them  not  fo  much  as 
eat  with  one  who  is  called  a  brother,  when  once  he  dif 
covers  an  inconfifiency  between  his  character  and  pro- 
feiiion,  i  Cor.  v.  1  i.  Timothy  is  itricliy  charged  to 
withdraw  from  thofe  "  who  had  a  form  of  gcdlinefs, 
but  denied  the  power  thereof."' 

But  can  there  be  anything  more  truly  iidiculous 
than  for  thofe  who  julfity  impure  communion  by  the 
example  of  Judas,  to  lpend  whole  hours  in  debarring 
and  fencing  }  If  our  Lord  did  not  debar  Judas,  and  if 
this  Ihews  the  propriety  of  admitting  perfons  whom  we 
know  to  be  unworthy,  the  conclufion  is,  that  it  would 
be  improper  to  for  bid  them.  If  the  fober  worldling  is 
admitted,  I  afk,  by  what  authority  is  the  drunkard,  the 
i wearer,  the  fornicator,  &c.  denied  admiflion  ?  Ah  ! 
brethren,  you  mult  be  at  a  great  lofs  for  a  foundation, 
when  you  are  obliged  to  build  upon  Judas.  It  mult 
be  an  ill  built  houfe,  in  which  Judas  bimfelf  is  the  chief 
comer-Hone. 

Obj.  5.  The  parable  of  the  tares  3r.d  the  wheat,  is 
ufually   one  of  the   bulwarks  of  impure   churches  *.— 

*  For  a  full,  clear,  and  fat::. factory  explanation  of  this 
parable,  fee  "  Mr  Innes's  Reai'ocis  for  feparating  from  the 
church  of  Scotland."  I  decline  a  full  explanation  of  this, 
and  fome  other  things,  as  they  are  largely  tr  ated  in  that 
pamphlet,  which  1  trunk  Ihould  be  in  the  hands  of  all  who 
w.'h  for  information  on  this  ful'jecL 


103 

But  this  obje&ion  is  founded  on  a  mifapplication  of  the 
parable.  It  fuppofes  that  the  field  is  the  church,  where- 
as our  Lord  himi'elf  exprefsly  explains  it  to  mean  the 
world.  The  tares  are  confidered  as  church  members  ; 
whereas,  this  would  make  our  Lord's  injunction  con- 
trary to  that  of  the  apoitle  Paul,  "  Purge  out  the  old 
leaven."  "  Do  ye  not  j-idge  them  that  are  within  ?" 
It  was  alfo  the  devil  who  fowed  them,  and  not  Chrift's 
fervants  by  miftake.  Thofe,  who  from  this,  plead  for 
promifcuous  admiffion,  acknowledge  themfelves  to  be, 
not  the  fervants  of  Chriit,  but  of  Satan,  employed  in 
fowing  the  tare-feed  in  Chrift's  field,  while  his  fervants 
ileep.  But  without  fpending  time  in  (hewing  why  it 
cannot  have  this  interpretation,  I  will  juft  briefly 
point  out  what  I  take  to  be  its  obvious  and  confiftent 
meaning.  The  wheat  represents  the  children  of  God  j 
the  tares  the  children  of  the  wicked  one  ;  they  both 
grow  in  the  fame  field,  the  world.  The  fervants  of 
Chrift  are  not  to  endeavour  to  root  out  the  latter,  left 
in  doing  fo,  they  would  root  out  the  wheat.  The  de- 
fign  of  the  parable,  is  to  (hew  the  impropriety  of  per- 
fection, fiom  this  reafon,  that  if  the  wicked  of  one  ge- 
neration were  cut  off,  thoufands  of  the  children  of  God, 
who  are  to  fpring  from  them,  would  thereby  be  prevent- 
ed from  coming  into  being.  The  lives  of  the  wicked 
are  now  preferved,  becaufe  they  are  the  anceftors  of 
multitudes,  who  (hall  turn  to  God  in  'the  hitter  days. 
This  1  take  to  be  alfo  the  meaning  of  Matt.  xxiv.  2Z. 
M  For  the  e/effs  fake,  thofe  days  (hall  be  fhortened." 
By  eleSi  here,  tve  are,  in  my  opinion,  principally  to  un- 
derftand  the  unborn  elect.  The  Jews,  who  efcaped  at 
the  (lege  of  Jerufalem,  were  fpared,  becaufe  they  were 
to  be  the  fathers  of  all  thofe  Jews  who  fhall  turn  to 
God  in  the  restoration.  God  could  have  preferved  the 
elecl  that  were  alive  in  the  time  of  that  fiege,  in  vari- 
ous ways.  But  in  what  other  way  could  the  prophecies 
of  the  reiioration  of  the  Jews,  have  been  accomplished, 
than  by  preferving  a  number  of  that  wicked  generation, 
for  the  purpofe  of  introducing  his  future  people  into  ex- 
ill  er.ce  ?  If  all  the  Jews  had  been  cut  off  then,  what 
would  have  become  of  thofe  countlefs  thoufands  and 
millions  of  their  dependents,  that  fhali  fei  ve   Chrift   in 


104 

their  return  ?  The  Jews,  fince  their  reje&ion  of  Chrift, 
have  been  preferved,  perhaps  cbirfy  for  the  fake  of  their 
future  offspring.  This  is  clearly  exprcffed  in  the  pro- 
phecy of  Ifiiah  lxv.  8.  As  the  unripe  bunch  of  grapes 
is  preferved  for  the  lake  of  the  wine  that  it  lhall  alter- 
wards  yield,  fo  God  prefcrves  the  Jevvilh  nation  for 
the  fake  of  their  future  defcendents,  who  are  to  ferve 
him. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

Additional  Reafons  for  Separating  from  the  General 
Synod. 

Though  I  had  no  objection  to  the  government  of  claf- 
fical  prefbytery,  and  could  effect  parity  of  communion 
in  my  own  congregation,  without  experiencing  any  hin- 
drance from  fortign  interference,  liill  1  could  not  with  a 
good  confeience  remain  a  member  of  the  general  lynod. 
I  have  many  reaions  for  this  conviction  j  a  few  of  them 
1  will  here  llatc. 

i.  "  How  can  a  man  mount  a  very  high  hill  with  a 
"  weighty  burthen,  having  feveral  hundreds  pulling  him 
"  back  by  the  fkirts  ?  Is  it  n«t  much  better  to  climb  up 
"  the  precipice  in  company  with  others  who  are  going 
"  the  lame  way,  to  go  arm  in  arm,  the  ftrong  bearing 
"  the  weak,  fo  that  if  a  foot  flip,  we  may  not  be  dalhed 
"  to  pieces  by  a  fall  ?"  The  former  was  exactly  my 
fituation  ,  the  whole  weight  of  my  connexion  being  as  a 
clog  upon  me,  retarding  my  progrels,  by  their  laws,  ex- 
ample, and  fpirit.  We  have  all  too  much  inclination  to 
indifference  and  negligence  in  our  Lord's  caufe.  There 
is  no  need  of  an  external  hindrance.  "  Can  a  man  take 
fire  into  his  bofom.  and  not  be  burned  "  Who  will  fay 
that  the  verv  fociety  of  men  indifferent  to  religion,  is 
iiot  a  ftrong  temptation  to  relax  exertion  in  the  caufe  of 
Chrilt  ?  But  cfpecially,  if  they  are  not  only  indifferent, 


105 

but  inimical  to  tlic  Threading  of  the  gofpel,  the  danger  is 
increafed.  If*  the  religion  of  the  Bible  be  called  enthu- 
fiafm  and  madnefs,  there  is  a  flrong  temptation  to  hide 
its  peculiar  features,  and  appear  lefs  zealous  for  its  dif- 
fulion.  "  Two  cannot  walk  together  except  they  are 
agreed."  What  concord,  then,  can  there  be  between 
thtm  and  me  ?  They  view  me  with  jealcufy,  and  I  con- 
fnter  them  traitors  to  rry  matter  *.  —  My  exertions  for  a 
revival  of  religion  they  think  ufelefs.  Some  fuppofe 
that  I  am  actuated  by  a  love  of  applaufe,  while  others, 
more  friendly,  think  I  am  only  mad.  Now,  in  this 
fituation,  what  mutual  happinefs  can  there  be  from  the 
fociety  of  men  fo  oppofile  in  their  views  and  conduft  ? 
We  both  contribute  to  make  each  other  uncomfortable. 
I  am  fure  I  have  never  fuffered  more  acute  pain  in  my 
life,  than  in  their  affemblies.  I  avoided  their  meetings 
as  much  as  I  could,  for  I  always  entered  them  with  hor- 
ror and  reluctance.  But  of  late,  I  underffand  they  have 
determined  that  1  fhould  not  enjoy  that  liberty.  Is  it 
not,  then,  much  better  that  I  fhould  aft  feparately,  for 
1  am  fure  they  are  not  more  offenfive  to  me,  than  I  am 
to  them  ?  Shall  I,  for  a  morfel  of  bread,  facrifice  my 
own  happinefs,  and  remain  under  continual  reftraint  and 
temptation  ?  "  A  man's  life  confiffeth  not  in  the  abun- 
dance of  the  things  he  poffeffes."  He  muft  be  a  very 
inexperienced  Chriffian  indeed,  who  thinks  that  he 
does  not  need  rather  to  be  fpurred  than  curbed  in  his 
courfe. 

2.  "  I  cannot  be  a  member  of  the  general  fynod, 
"  without  renouncing  my  Chriffian  liberty,  and  fubmit- 
"  ting  my  confcience  to  be  ruled  and  lorded  over  by 
"  man."  1  am  not  allowed  to  be  direfted  by  my  own 
confcience  in  the  fervice  of  my  maffer.  I  muff  aft  not 
on  my  own  conviftion  of  what  is  right  and  wrong,  but 

*  When  I  involve  the  fynod  in  a  general  cenfure,  I  al- 
ways intend  a  majority  of  the  members,  and  not  every  in- 
dividual, becaiife  a  majority  is  the  fynod,  and  can  rule  the 
minority  as  they  pleafe.  I  pretend  not  to  determine  what 
may  be  the  number  of  faithful  I'eivaMs  of  Chrift  in  that 
connexion.  Fur  fuch,  whatever  be  <Wrc  d.ffcrencfc  of  opi- 
|UOfi|  I  have  the  mofl  coidial  affection, 


106 

Recording  to  the  caprice   of  others  •,  my  of  thofe    Ief- 
teem  as  decided  enemies  to  the  caufe  of  the  Lord  Jefus. 
I  mi g  it  get  drunk,  frequently  ;    sffbeiate   with  the  moil 
profligate;  fpend  thr  Sabbath  afternoons  in  gay  puties  ; 
follow  the  world  the  whole  week,  with  my  whole  heart  ; 
preach  agai  iff  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  revelation  -y  de- 
ny   the    very    Lord    and    Saviour  of   men  ;     attend    the 
theatre,  balls,  a  d  card   parties  ;    and  Rill   my    brethren 
would   extend   their    charity    to   me:    except   a  formal 
charge  would  be  brought  againft   me  by   my   own  con- 
gregation, I  might  even  pifs   unnoticed.      Here  human 
frailty,  and  freedom  of  inquiry,  would  plead  my  excul'e. 
But  if  I  would  dare  to  preach  the  gofpel  out  of  my  own 
bound?,  or  admit  an  evangelical  miniller  of  another  de- 
nomination to  occupy  my    pulpit,  dreadful  would  be  the 
thunder  that   would   be   hurled  agarnft    me  !     Nothing 
lets  than  public  rebuke  for  the    rirft,   and   fufpenfion  for 
the  fccor.d  commiffion  of  fuch  mortal  Jim.     "  Whereas 
"  it  appears,  that  our  laws  refpe&ing  the  admiffion   of 
"  men.  not  members  of  this  body,  or  licentiates   under 
••  its  care,  to  officiate  for  us,  are  too  generally  expreffed 
*'  to  be  of  any  practical  ufe  :   It  is  now  enafted,  that  no 
"  man,  not  a  member  of  this  body,  or  a  licentiate  under 
"  its  care  (the  prefbytery   of   Antrim,  and    fcuthern  af- 
"  iociation  excepted,")  fh all  be  permitted  to  officiate  for 
"  us  in  our  congregations,  until  he    (hall  firft  fubmit  his 
"  credentials   to    the    prefbytery,   in    whole   bounds   he 
"  wilhes  to  preach,  aud  until  he  fhall  be  approved  of  by 
"  the  prefbytery  :  and  any  minifter  of  this  body,   viola- 
"  ting  this  law,  fhall,  for  the  firft   offence,   be  publicly 
"  rebuked  by  his  prefbytery,   before   his   congregation, 
"  and  for  the  fecond  be  fufpended  ab  officio,  fine   die.'''' 
If   ever   a   child    was  known  by   its    reiemblar.ee  to  the 
parent,  this  lure  muft  be  the  daughter  of  the  mother  of 
lnrlots.      This  is  her  prominent  feature  :  this  is  her  very 
temper   and   genius.     "  O,   ye  Scribes   and    Phariiees, 
how  long  will  ye  make  void  the   law    of  God   by  ycir 
traditions!      In  vain  do  you  worfhip   him,   teaching   for 
doctrines  the  commandments  of  men.1'      Where  is  their 
authority  for  impaAng  fuch  reftraints  upon  the  lervauts 
of  the  Lord  I   1  CTmnot  fubmit  to  this  tyranny   without 
calling  men  my  mailer,  contrary  totheexprefs  comm 


107 

of  Jefus.  I  am  commanded  "  to  fland  fart  in  the  liber- 
ty with  which  he  has  made  me  free."  Though  the  apos- 
tle fpeaks  this  immediately  of  the  Jewiih  yoke,  yet.  as 
no  fcripture  is  of  any  private  interpretation,  it  equally 
forbids  any  human  impofition,  in  the  things  of  God. 
When  Chrift  has  left  us  free,  we  are  not  to  allow  any 
man  or  body  of  men  to  bind  us,  or  even  to  bind  our- 
felves.  Every  human  reflraint  in  religion  is  ufurpation 
and  treafon.  A  Chriftian,  indeed,  is  fometimes  to  de- 
cline ufing  his  liberty,  to  avoid  Humbling  his  weak  bro- 
ther, but  he  is  not  even  in  this  cafe  to  come  under  bond- 
age to  him,  dill  lefs  is  he  to  come  under  reftraint  to 
plcafe  thofe  who  are  enemies  to  the  pure  g'fpelofjaha- 
i.on. 

I  ?m  truly  concerned  for  the  fpiritual  daiknefs  of  my 
native  land.  While  the  v\ork  of  the  Lord  is  liouriihing 
in  both  parts  of  Britain,  there  is  in  this  ifiand  as  yet  but 
little  done.  Ah  !  the  troufands  that  are  perifhing  for 
lack  of  knowledge  !  What  profligacy  of  n. aimers  do 
we  fee  every  where  abounding  !  I  am  convinced  that 
there  is  no  other  remedy  for  the  evil  but  the  unadul- 
tt  rated gcfpeloj  Chrijl.  Shall  I  then  fubmit  to  be  croop- 
ed  up  in  a  corner,  and  reftrained  by  human  fetters  from 
lending  a  lrand  to  refcue  my  brethren  from  the  pit  of 
deftruclion  ?  "  lime  is  (hort  j"  the  day  of  work  is  but 
a  blink  ;  I  muft:  foon  give  an  account  of  my  flewardfhip, 
and  I  know  that  however  much  I  may  incur  the  difplea- 
fure  of  men,  however  great  may  be  my  temporal  lofs,in 
the  end  I  (hall  not  repent  the  ftep  I  have  taken.  1 
know  that  God  judgeth  not  as  man  judgeth.  I  know, 
indeed,  it  is  faid  that  I  might  employ  all  my  time  in  my 
own  congregation  ;  but  I  anfwer,  that  I  may  do  much 
abroad,  and  not  do  the  lefs  at  home.  I  believe  we  will 
generally  find,  that  thofe  who  do  moil  abroad,  likewise 
do  moil  in  their  own  congregation.  It  is  my  duty  to 
ferd  the  poor  of  my  own  neighbourhood  rather  than 
thofe  at  a  difiance  ;  but  it  would  be  a  hard  matter,  if 
I  was  fo  bound  that  I  could  not  giv^r  halfpenny  to  a 
ftarving  begoar  on  my  journey.  Hfide%  the  public 
preaching  of  the  gofpel  is  that  part  of  the  office  in  winch 
I  take  peculiar  delight,  and  in  which  I  am  never  weary.. 


108 

The  hireling  may  work  his  hours,  hut  he  that  loves 
Jcfus,  mould,  like  him,  "  go  about  doing  good  ;"  like 
him  it  fliould  be  his  very  "  meat  and  drink,  to  do  the 
will  of  his  heavenly  Father." 

3.  "  I  do  not  find  myfelf  juflified  in  recognizing  as 
"  minifters,  thofe  whom  I  confider  as  deltitute  of  the 
"  qualifications  deemed  effential  by  an  apoft'e."  A 
bifhop  mull  be  blamelefs,  the  hufband  of  one  wife, 
vigilant,  fober,  of  good  behaviour,  given  to  hofpi'ality, 
apt  {rather  Jit)  to  teach — not  given  to  wine — no  Jlriker 
— not  greedy  of  filthy  lucre,  but  patient — not  a  brawler 
nor  covetous — one  that  ruleth  well  his  own  houfe,  hav- 
ing his  children  in  fubjeftion  with  all  gravity.  (For  if 
a  man  know  not  how  to  rule  his  own  houfe,  how  (hall 
he  take  care  of  the  church  of  God  ?)  Not  a  novice,  left 
being  lifted  up  with  pride,  he  fall  into  the  condemnation  ■ 
of  the  devil.  Moreover,  he  muft  have  a  good  report  of 
them  which  are  without*  left  he  fall  into  reproach  and 
the  fnare  of  the  devil,"  1  Tim  iii.  2 — 7.  "  A  bifhop 
muft  not  be  fell*  willed — not  foon  angry — a  lover  of  good 
men — jujl,  holy,  temperate — holding  fafl  the  faithful 
word,  as  he  hath  been  taught,  that  he  may  be  able,  by 
found  doiStrine,  both  to  exhort  and  convince  the  gain- 
layers,"  Titus  i.  7 — 9.  J  forbear  to  make  the  applica- 
tion. Suffice  it  to  fay,  that  if  thefe  are  effential  qualifi- 
cations in  a  paftor,  I  cannot  recogiiize  as  brethren  many 
of  the  members  of  the  general  fynod. 

4.  "  A  Calvinift  and  a  Socinian  or  Arian  can  with 
"  no  propriety  worfhlp  together."  They  do  not  addrefs 
the  fame  God.  When  they  unite  in  prayer,  they  are 
like  a  friend  to  the  Pretender,  and  another  of  king 
George,  drinking  the  king,  as  a  toaft,  when  each  intend- 
ed his  own  favourite.  They  do  not  addrefs  the  fame 
being,  though  they  ufe  the  fame  name.  If  I  addrefs  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft,  as  my  God,  he  that  de- 
nies the  Godhead  of  the  Son  and  Spirit,  muft  look  upon 
me  as  an  idolater.  In  return,  I  look  upon  him  as  an 
atheift.  "  He  tba^Ienieth  the  Son,  the  fame  hath  not 
the  Father  ;  he  that  honoureth  not  the  Son,  honoureth 
not  the  Father  that  hath  fcnt  him."     When  he  prayeth, 


109 

he  addtefles  not  the  Jehovah  of  the  Scripture,  but  an 
idol  of  his  own  creation,  as  different  from  the  true  God, 
as  Jupiter  or  Apollo  *.  His  God  is  as  really  of  his 
own  making,  as  if  he  had  hewn  bim  out  of  wood  or 
ftone.  He  fteals  from  the  Scripture  account  of  the 
true  God,  fome  of  his  properties,  and  thofe  attributes 
that  fuit  him  beft.  When  he  robs  him  of  bis  juftice, 
and  abufively  extends  his  meicy,  he  can  difpenfe  with 
the  facrifice  of  Jefus  ;  he  has  got  a  god  to  h's  mind  :  an 
idol  of  his  own  imagination.  This  god  he  loves,  be- 
caufe  this  god  does  not  hate  fin  ;  but  the  Jehovah  of 
the  Scriptures  he  hates,  becaufe  he  is  the  enemy  of  fin, 
and  "  hath  revealed  his  wr^th  againft  all  ungodlineis 
and  unrighteoufnefs  of  men."  In  what  then  are  we  a» 
greed  ?  Not  even  in  the  God  we  worfhip  :  not  in  the 
way  of  falvation.  How  improper  is  it,  then,  for  us  to 
make  each  other  the  organ  of  prayer  ?  How  can  we  co-. 
operate,  feeing  our  principles  are  fo  entirely  oppofite  ?  If 
each  of  us  be  confcientious,  we  muft  be  at  conftant  war. 
With  as  great  propriety,  might  the  French  and  Englifh 
officers  meet  in  a  council  of  war,  before  an  engagement, 
to  concert  the  meafures  that  each  were  to  adopt,  as 
people  of  fuch  oppofite  fentiments  to  fit  in  the  fame  fy- 
nod. 

5.  "  By  remaining  in  connexion  with  the  fynod,  I 
"  contribute  to  deceive  the  public,  as  to  the  radical 
"  difference  between  my  principles,  and  tbofe  maintained 
"  by  many  in  the  fynod."  My  example  by  continuing 
in  that  connexion,  might  be  the  means  of  keeping  fome 
of  the  people  of  Chrift  under  the  miniftry  of  thofe  who 
corrupt  the  gofpel.  It  is  natural  for  people  to  judge 
that  there  cannot  be  any  momentous  points  in  which 
we  differ,  or  we  would  not  continue  to  co  operate  and 
acknowledge  each  other  as  brethren  in  Chrift.     This  I 

*  The  fame  thing  will  hold  againft  making  any  unre"-e- 
nerate  man  the  organ  of  prayer.  When  fuch  men  are  fet 
up  to  offer  the  prayers  of  an  affembly,  as  they  "  know  not 
God,"  fo  "  they  worfhip  they  know  not  what  "  They 
cannot  pray  with  the  Spirit,  and  confetjuently  they  cannot 
pray  at  all.  Thofe  who  join  them  are  partakers  in  their 
abominations. 

K 


110 

know  to  be  the  cafe.  The  generality  of  private  Chri- 
ftians  in  the  gener<l  fynod.  have  no  conception  that  we 
differ  fo  materially.  Suppofe,  then,  I  could  remain 
a  member  of  fynod.  without  injury  to  mylelf,  yet 
I  am  guilty  of  deceiving  others.  If  I  think  that  any 
miniittrs  of  that  body,  are  wolves  in  (beep's  cloathing, 
not  feeding,  bur  devouring  the  flock,  I  am  a  partaker 
of  their  foul  murder,  if  1  do  not  give  the  alarm,  and 
warn  the  (heep  to  fly. 

What  is  the  ufe  of  the  8th  chapter  of  i  Cor.  to  us  ? 
Does  it  not  teach  us,  that,  if  in  any  particular  inftance, 
the  ufe  of  our  Chrillian  liberty  may  prove  an  occafion 
of  (tumbling  to  weak  brethren,  we  ought  to  forego  it, 
rather  than  he  fhould  be  injured  ?  If  I  (it  in  the  idol's 
temple,  eating  the  flelh  of  animals  offered  in  ficrifice, 
though  I  eat  it  (imply  to  fatisfy  my  hunger,  knowing 
that  there  is  no  divinity  in  the  idol,  and  that  the  meat 
cannot  be  rendered  in  itfelf  impure,  by  this  improper 
ufe,  yet  my  weak  brother  f.eing  me  there,  partaking 
with  idolaters,  is  led  to  think,  that  I  am  joining  them 
in  their  worfliip.  and  by  my  example,  is  emboldened  to 
eat  it  as  a  facrifice  to  the  idol. — "  Through  my  know- 
ledge (hall  the  weak  brother  perifh  for  whom  Chrift 
died  '"'  Suppofe,  then,  that  my  connexion  with  the  fy- 
nod was  a  matter  not  finful  in  itfelf,  yet  by  its  confe- 
■quences,  it  becomes  finiul.  Many  may  be  encouraged 
by  my  example,  to  fit  under  a  minifiry,  in  which  the 
gofpel  is  depraved,  or  hidden.  If  I  (hould  be  the  oc- 
cafion of  Rumbling  one  of  Chrift's  little  ones,  the  lofs  I 
would  fuftain  in  the  day  of  the  Lord  Jefus,  would  be 
infinitely  greater  than  all  I  cm  lofe  by  leaving  the  fy- 
nod. Awful  will  be  our  refponfibility.  and  it  is  requir- 
ed, above  all  things,  in  a  fie  ward,  that  he  be  faithful. 
If  this  be  not  a  lawful  application  of  Scripture,  I  know 
of  no  ufe  that  this  chapter  can  be  at  prefent. 

6.  "  Mv  connexion  with  the  fynod  is  contrary  to  the 
"  law  of  love,  and  the  dutv  I  owe  the  members  of  it  as 
"  men"  If  I  believe,  that  '*  Except  a  man  be  born  a- 
gain,  he  cannot  fee  tl  e  kingdom  of  God  ;"  and  if  I  be- 
lieve that  few  of  them  evidence  fuch  a  change  j    nay,  if 


Ill 

I  know  many  of  them  to  deny  and  ridicule  this  truth 
8$  cni'iufiafm,  I  would  not  be  t  eir  friend,  it  in  any 
thing  iny  conduct  would  lead  then  to  believe,  that  I 
coniidered  t.ieir  fifuition  to  be  lefs  dmgerous,  than  ill 
real  ty  I  know  it  to  be.  Now,  as  long  as  I  remain  a 
member  of  fvnod  and  aft  with  t^-em  as  brethren  in 
Chrift,  it  is  impoffible  tor  them  to  thmk  that  I  am  real- 
ly in  earned,  as  to  the  importance  of  my  views  of  the 
truths  of  the  go'pel.  Beficies,  there  are  many  who 
would  fubfcribt:  perhaps  every  docbineof  the  gofpel, 
of  whole  date  I  nave  no  better  hopes  Such  perfons, 
then,  would  have  reafon  to  complain  of  me  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  great  day.  that  I  .  died  an  unfriendly  part 
towards  them  ;  that  while  I  considered  them  as  "  in 
the  gall  of  bitternefs  and  bond  of  iniquity,"  I  acled  with 
them  as  minifters  of  Chrilt  ;  by  which  means  they  were 
led  to  conclude  that  I  could  have  no  very  unfavourable 
opinion  of  them.  I  know  I  will  be  charged  with  a 
want  of  charity  of  fentiment,  when  I  exprefs  fuch  an 
opinion  of  the  fynod.  Charity,  however,  is  not  mat- 
ter of  opinion,  but  of  feeling,  and  a  man  may  have  the 
purefl  love  for  another,  while  he  is  molt  ftrongly  con- 
vinced of  his  guilt  and  danger.  A  juror  may  have  every 
wilh  that  the  criminal  may  be  acquitted,  yet  he  may,  by 
evidence,  be  obliged  to  join  in  the  verdi£t,  "  guilty." 
Shall  I  go  pad  my  neighbour's  houfe  at  night,  feeitjgit 
on  fire,  and  not  awake  him,  left  I  mould  diftuib  or 
grieve  him  ?  Shall  1  rather  fuffer  him  to  be  confirmed 
in  the  flames,  than  alarm  him  ?  Yet  this  is  the  murder- 
ous charity  for  which  many  plead  ;  that,  while  we  have 
the  cleared:  evidence  that  men  are  living  without  God, 
we  fhould  believe,  or  feign  to  believe,  that  they  may  be 
faved  in  their  fins.  In  other  words,  we  hope  God  is  a 
liar — that  he  will  not  do  as  he  has  faid.  Dr  Johnfon 
faid,  that  every  man  was  to  be  held  unlearned,  till  he 
proved  the  contrary  The  obfervation  is  equally  juft 
when  applied  to  religion.  No  man  has  a  ri^ht  to  be 
efteemed  a  Chrifiian.  till  his  fruits  prove  it.  What 
would  we  think  of  the  man  who  would  fay,  that  in  the 
judgment  of  charity,  he  looked  upon  all,  or  the  greater 
part  of  men  to  be  learned  >  The  fame  fhould  we  think 
of    the    man   who  profeffes  to  believe,  that  men   are 


112 

Chiiflians,  who  give  no  evidence  of  the  facl.  We  have 
the  word  of  unerring  wifdom,  declaring  that  all  men  are 
"  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath  y*  until  we  have 
evidence  that  they  are  born  again,  and  adopted  into  the 
lamily  of  God,  we  are  not  warranted  to  look,  upon  them 
as  Chiiftians.  Eternal  life  is  the  word  1  with  to  any 
member  of  the  fynod,  or  to  any  man  on  earth  j  but  if  I 
believe  God,  I  muft  believe  that  all  "  who  know  not 
God,  and  obey  r.ot  the  gojpcl  of  our  Lord  Jems  Chrift, 
fhall  be  punilhed  with  everlufting  dellruclion  from  the 
prefence  of  the  Lord,  and  fiom  the  glory  of  his  power." 

7.  "  I  cannot  corifcientioufly  join  in  licenfing  and 
"  ordaining  tbofe  whom  I  know  do  not  poffefs  the  pre- 
"  requifite  qualifications,  pointed  out  in  the  word  of 
M  God."  Paul  ftates  thefe  minutely  to  Timothy  and 
Titus.  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  right  to  give  our  coun- 
tenance to  any  candidates,  who  do  not  anfwer  to  this 
defcription.  The  candidate  for  u  the  office  of  a  bi- 
lhop,"  muft  not  be  even  a  novice,  or  new  convert,  left 
from  his  inexperience  he  ihould  fall  into  temptation 
from  the  natural  pride  of  the  human  heart  *.  But  if 
it  be  improper  to  appoint  newly  converted  men  to  the 
charge  of  a  flock,  how  dreadful  muft  be  the  fin  of  ap. 
pointing  the  blind  to  lead  the  blind,  and  unregenerate 
men  to  feed  the  flock  of  Chrift  ?  Paul  fays  to  Timo- 
thy, (1  Tim.  v.  zz.)  "  lay  hands  fuddenly  upon  no 
man,  neither  be  partakers  of  other  men's  fins  :  keep 
thyfelf  pure."  It  appears,  then,  that  thofe  who  give 
their  fauction  to  unworthy  men  to  preach  the  gofpel, 
are  partakers  of  their  fins.  They  fhare  with  them  in 
the  guilt  of  all  the  evil  they  commit  in  deftroying  the 
fouls  of  men.  He  does  not  direct  him  to  ordain  no 
man  without  fub'cribing  a  human  confeffzon  of  faith. 
This  could  have  been  done  in   an  inltant  ;  if  this   had 


*  Thofe   who  juftify   the   appointment  of  unconverted 

men  to  prei~h  the  gofpel,  and   tike    charge  of  a  chuichpf 

,  from  'he  example  of  Judas,  would   do  well  to  con- 

rhe    i;np  >rt  of  this   portion  of  Scripture.      If  a   man 

newly  converted  be  unfit  for  the  p^!!or'j  orRce,  much  mote 

15  he  who  is  not  converted  at  a!. 


113 

been  the  teft,  there  would  have  been  no  need  of  delay. 
The  caution  implies  not  only  that  Timothy  fhould  not 
ordain  perlons  of  a  Icandalous  cli  rafter,  but  even  tnat 
perions  who  leemed  to  ponds  the  requilite  qualitica- 
tions,  ihould  not  be  appointed  to  the  paitoral  office,  till 
they  had  given  fufficient  evidences  that  they  were  what 
they  teemed  to  be.  All  unregenerate  men  are  the  fer- 
vants  of  oatan  j  and  let  ihemfubfcribe  an  /wear  what 
they  will,  Satan  they  will  lerve,  "  until  they  aie  turn- 
ed from  darknefs  unto  light,  and  from  the  power  ot  Sa- 
tan unto  God.''  How  dreadful  then  is  the  crime  of 
giving  a  public  fanclion  to  iuch  men,  as  the  fervants  of 
Chrilt  !  They  will  preach  orthodoxy  or  heterodoxy  as 
belt  fuits  their  temporal  intereft,  but  though  they  have 
the  form,  they  have  none  of  the  power  of  godlinefs. 
They  may  preach  a  dead,  dry  fyllem,'but  being  blind, 
they  cannot  lead  the  blind  j  and  having  no  fpintual  or- 
gans to  "  difcem  the  things  of  the  Spirit,  they  cannot 
know  them."  I  acknowledge  the  moft  conlcientious 
may  be  deceived,  but  x*  is  really  awiul  to  hear  lome 
good  men  pleading  tor  tHe  propriety  of  fending  out  un- 
converted men  to  preach  the  gofpel,  becaufe  judas  was 
an  hypocrite.  It  is  no  wonder,  then,  that  fome  feels, 
with  all  their  boafted  orthodoxy,  have  little  more  of 
the  life  and  power  of  godlincfs  than  thofe  who  do  not 
make  fuch  high  pretenlions.  Once  acknowledge  the 
principle  that  the  fervants  of  SiUn,  if  taey  are  ortho- 
dox and  fober,  are  proper  perfons  to  feed  the  flock  of 
Chrilt,  and  in  a  fhort  time  deidnefsand  torpor  will  per- 
vade the  body.  Ail  the  zeal  of  individuals  will  not 
be  able  to  keep  it  alive,  A  profeflion  of  orthodoxy 
was  not  the  tell  ufed  by  the  apoftles.  "  And  when 
James,  and  Cephas,  and  John,  who  feemed  to  be  pillars, 
perctived  the  grace  that  was  given  unto  me,  they  gave 
to  me  ano  Barnabas  the  right  hand  of  telowfhip,  that 
we  fhould  go  unto  the  heathen,  and  they  unto  the  cir- 
curacifion,"  Gal.  ii.  9.  The  evidence  of  his  qualifica- 
tions was  not  the  fubfeript  ion  of  a  formula,  but  his  ap- 
pearing to  have  received  the  grace  of  Lrod.  1  cannot 
fee  how  an  unconverted  orthodox  minilter  is  a  lefs  dan- 
gerous man  than  he  who  is  moft  openly  hoftile  to  the 
doctrines  of  the  gofpel.     In  my  opinion  the  former  is 


114 

the  more  dangerous  of  the  two,  as  men  are  lefs  aware 
of  him.  Paul,  fpeaking  of  the  deacons,  (iTim.  iii. 
iz.)  fays,  "Let  thefe  alfo  full  be  proved."  This 
fhews  the  great  care  that  fhould  be  taken  in  choofing 
church  officers.  Their  acknowledgment  of  the  leading 
doctrines  of  the  gofpel  is  not  given  as  a  teft.  Even 
perfons  that  appear  to  poffels  the  neceflary  qualifica- 
tions, are  not  to  be  haltily  appointed  to  office  -y  they 
■tnujl  be  proved.  "  Thtfe  alfo,"  that  is,  deacons  as  well 
?.s  pafiors.  If  this  reafoning  be  juft,  it  is  applicable  to 
all  the  denominations  of  prelhyterians,  with  which  I 
am  acquainted.  But  I  am  not  obliged  to  red  any  part 
of  this  argument  upon  the  finfulnefs  of  licenfir.g  and 
ordaining  merely  unconverted  men.  As  a  member 
of  the  general  lyncd,  I  may  be  forced  to  join  in  K- 
f  enfing  and  ordaining  men  who  He  cbaraRers  and  doc- 
trine* 1  condemn.  I  may  be  obliged  to  be  the  very  or- 
gan of  licenfing  and  ordaining  a  man  who  preaches  an 
oppoiite  gofpel  from  what  1  believe  to  be  true.  What 
a  mcnlirous  inconfiftency  is  here  !  If  I  believe  the  doc- 
trines I  preach,  1  rnuft  be  convinced  that  I  am  fending 
cut  a  muderir  inileaJ  ot  a  phyfician.  Am  I  not  guil- 
ty, then,  of  .ill  the  blood  he  fpills  ?  Surely  1  am  par- 
(  ,.  r  of  this  man's  fins.  Yes.  I  take  fhame  and  con- 
fufioi  of  face  to  myfelf,  that  I  have  fo  long  fan&ioned 
nailer's  enemies  1  acknowledge  myfelf  to  have 
hitherto  been  a  partaker  of  the  guilt  of  thofe  who 
are  the  "  enemies  of  the  crofs  of  Chrift,  whole  God  is 
their  belly,  vvhofe  glory  is  their  fhame,  who  mind  earth- 
ly things.'* 

8.  "  I  have  a  pofit've  and  exprefs  command  to 
'.'  fepaiate  from  a  corrupt  church."  z  Cor.  vi.  t  %% — 18. 
"  Be  ye  not  unequally  yoked  together  with  unbelievers, 
for  what  fellowship  hath  'ighteoufnefs  with  unrighteouf- 
nefs?  And  what  coonmunion  hnth  light  with  darknefs  ? 
And  what  concord  hath  Child  with  Belial?  or  what 
Tt  ath  he  that  believeth  wkh  an  infidel  ?  And  what 
agreement  hath  the  temple  of  God  with  idoU  ?  for  ye 
are  the  tempi:  of  the  living  God;  as  God  'ath  laid,  I 
will  dwell  in  them  and  walk  in  them;  and  I  will  be 
llieiv   God;  and  they  ffia.l  be    my  people.     Wherefore 


115 

come  out  from  among  tbem,  and  be  ye  feparate,  faith  the 
Lord,  and  touch  not  the  unclean  thing,  and  I  will  re- 
ceive you.  And  will  be  a  Father  unto  you,  and  ye 
fhall  be  my  fons  and  daughters,  faith  the  Lord  Almigh- 
ty." The  Corinthians  are  here  commanded  to  leparate 
from  their  unbelieving  and  idolatrous  neighbours:  to  aban- 
don their  worfhip,  and  form  no  intimate  alliances  of  any 
kind  with  them.  This  command  is  given  to  me  as  well 
as  to  the  Corinthians,  for  I  am  no  ctherwife  addrefled 
but  as  a  member  of  the  apoftolical  churches.  All  un- 
converted men  are  idolaters,  and  unbelievers,  and  a  con- 
nexion with  them  is  even  more  dangerous  in  a  country 
called  Chriflian,  than  in  a  heathen  country.  The  fame 
reafon  alfo  that  forbids  the  marriage  of  believers  with 
unbelievers,  will  equally  forbid  our  connexion  in  church 
communion  with  fuch.  It  is  alfo  exceedingly  obvious, 
that  though  the  command  is  particularly  levelled  againil 
joining  in  the  idolatrous  worfhip  of  the  heathens,  it  is 
exprefitd  in  a  general  manner,  fo  as  to  include  the  view 
I  now  give  of  it,  as  literally,  and  with  as  Uriel  precifion, 
as  the  other.  "  Be  ye  not  untqually  yoked  together 
with  unbelievers."  'This  will  hold  not  only  in  this  or 
that  inflance,  but  it  is  univei fally  applicable  to  the  for- 
mation of  any  intimate  union  of  believers  with  unbelie- 
vers, efpecially  in  church  communion.  Befides,  t;  ere 
is  not  an  argument  here  ufed  to  (hew  the  impropriety 
of  this  union  but  what  equally  applies  in  this  view.  All 
believers  are  righteous,  all  unbelievers  are  unrighteous. 
All  believers  are  light,  all  unbelievers  are  darkness. 
Ci.rift  dwells  in  all  believers,  Beiial  dwells  in  ai.  un- 
believers ;  he  is  the  fpirit  that  now  worketh  in  the  chil- 
dren of  difobedience.  Unbelievers  of  every  del.  rip- 
tion  nave  different  views,  obje£h  of  purfuit,  p  eniures, 
and  averfions,  from  believers.  1  hey  have  no  common 
ground  upon  which  they  en  found  any  ir.timate  union. 
Every  believer  is  a  temple  of  Gor.,  which  he  inhabits 
through  the  Spirit  ;  idols  of  one  kind  or  ori'er  inhabit 
the  heart  ov  every  unbeliever.  1  \  u]  j ufl  further 
obltrve,  that  if  fome  of  chofe  who  hav<  lo._  ..c  elsful- 
ly  quoteo  this  portion  of  Scripr  ire  u  ii.  ■  w  the  duty  of 
feparati   g  from  tl  e  ;. enerel   fj  vould    look   a    little 

more  narrowly  into  it,  they  nng.it  find  that  they  mould 


116 

carry  their  feparation  to  a  greater  length.  I  think  it 
fairly  condemns  the  admiffiun  of  all  carnal  men  to 
church  communion.  It  is  an  union  ot  believers  with  un- 
believers, not  merely  of  orthodox  with  heteiocox,  which 
is  here  forbidden.  "  Be  ye  not  unequally  yoked  toge- 
ther with  unbelievers." 

A  fimilar  command  have  I  in  Rev.  xviii.  4.  "  Come 
out  ot  her  my  people,  that  ye  be  not  partakers  of  her 
fins,  and  that  ye  receive  not  of  her  plagues."  This  in- 
deed is  immediately  fpoken  of  the  mother  of  harlots, 
but  it  will  equally  hold  with  relpecl  to  each  of  her 
daughters.  It  we  are  to  leave  one  corrupt  church,  we 
are  certainly  to  leave  another.  If  our  remaining  in 
communion  with  the  fpiritual  Babylon  would  make  us 
partakers  of  her  fins,  aid  fubjeft  us  to  fhare  her  plagues, 
the  fame  reaioning  *\iil  prove  that  we  are  partakers  of 
the  fins  of  any  corrupt  church  with  which  we  are  con- 
nected. If  we  mult  come  out  of  the  one  to  free  us 
from  her  fins,  the  fame  thing  will  be  neceffvtry  with 
refpecl  to  every  other.  As  long  as  we  countenance 
them  we  are  Iharers  of  their  guilt,  and  liable  to  ihaie 
their  punifhment. 

Paul  gives  Timothy  (2  Tim.  iii.  I, — 5.)  a  lift  of 
characters  who  would  sffume  a  profeffion  of  religion, 
without  the  power  of  it.  From  thefe.  he  pofuively 
commands  him  to  "  turn  away."  Now,  if  there  be  any 
fuch  characters  evidently  in  the  general  fynod,  it  is 
equally  my  duty  to  withdraw  from  them.  This  is  ano- 
ther paffnge  which  the  advocates  of  impure  minilleri  1 
and  Chriftian  communion  would  do  well  to  cor.fider. 
Thefe  might  be  very  orthodox  men  •,  they  had  a  M  form 
of  godlinefs."  They  would  have  no  objection  to  fub- 
fcribe  the  Weftminlier  Confeifion.  Molt  of  them  ap- 
pear alfo,  not  to  have  been  openly  immoral.  They 
might  have  a  very  finftified  air  in  a  church  court.  Yet 
from  fuch,  there  is  a  peculiar  necelTity  to  withdraw  j 
from  fuch  there  is  a  peculiar  danger.  When  men  of 
fuch  a  character  .appear,  and  are  acknowledged  in  a 
church  of  Chrift,  "  the  times  are  perilous."  The  de- 
vout worldling  is  more  dangerous  than  the  openly  pro- 


117 

fane.  Timothy  is  alfo  commanded  to  withdraw  from 
every  teacher  who  would  teach  otherwife  than  the  apo- 
flle  had  dire&ed.  "  And  content  not  to  wholefome 
words,  even  the  words  of  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  and  to 
the  doctrine  which  is  according  to  godlinefs,"  1  Tim. 
v,-.3l — j-  Certainly,  then,  I  am  not  juftifiable  in  re- 
maining in  connexion  with  the  general  fynod. 

In   writing  to  the  church  of  the  Theffalonians,   Paul 
gives  them  this  charge  :    "  Now   I   command  you,  bre- 
thren, in  the   name  of  our   Lord   Jefus    Chrift,  that  ye 
withdraw   yourfelves   from   every  brother  that  walketh 
diforderly,  and  not  after  the  tradition  which  he  received 
of  us."     What  Chrift  fpeaks   to  a  church  in  general,  is 
ipoken   to  each  individual,  in  particular.     Though  claf- 
fical  prefbytery  were  of  God's  appointing,  yet,  if  there 
were  but  one  diforderly  member  in  the   general  fynod, 
and  I  could  not  get  him  removed,  it  would  be  my  duty 
to  withdraw  ;  otherwife  I  am  a  partaker  of  his  fins.  As 
long  as   I   am   a   member  of  that  body,  I  am  an  accom- 
plice with  every  irregular  perfon  in  it,  whether  minifter 
or  private  member  *.     We   are   pofitively  commanded 
to    "  have   no    fellowfhip  with   the    unfruitful  works  of 
darknefs,   but   to   reprove    them,"     Eph.  v   n.       This 
precept   we   can   never  obey,  while   we   hold  profefled 
communion  with  unbelievers.     Nay,  fo  far  from  holding 
communion  with  them   in   the  ordinances"  of  Chrift,  we 
are  not  even  allowed   to   have   a   friendly  intimacy  with 
thole  that  are  called   brethren,  if  their   charafters  belie 
tneir  profeffion.     This  would  be   a   fcandal  to   the  reli- 
gion of  Chrift,  and  would  give  occafion   to  the   wicked 
to  blafpheme.      I  cannot,  then,  be  a  member  of  the  ge- 
neral  fynod  and  an  obedient  fervant  of  Chrift. 

*  If  there  be  any  juftice  in  this  remark,  it  is  a  confider- 
able  argument  again!*  an  aflociated  church  government. 
We  would  in  that  c^le,  be  accountable  for  the  conducl  of 
tl.ole  of  whom  \vt  could  not  polliblv  have  any  knowledge. 


lit 


CHAPTER  XIII. 
OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


Having  in  the  laft  chapter  given  fo-ne  reafons  for 
feparating  from  a  corrupt  church,  I  will  conclude  this 
pamphlet  bv  taking  notice  of  a  few  o'ljeftions  that 
have  been  frequently  urged  upon  me  to  diffuade  me 
from  giving  up  my  connexion  with  the  general  fy- 
nod- 

I.  "  It  is  faid  that  a  material  error  prevailed  in  the 
"  churches  of  Galatia,  and  that  in  writing  to  them, 
"  the  apoftle  dots  not  command  one  part  of  them  to  fe- 
*'  parate  from  the  other,  upon  the  fuppofition  that 
**  the  najority  would  not  return  to  the  truth — that  in 
"  cafe  the  majoritv  of  the  Corinthian  church  had  taken 
M  part  with  the  inceftuous  man,  and  refufed  to  obey 
•'  the  apoftoiical  injunction,  Piul  gives  no  command 
"  to  the  minority  to  fepirate  from  the  majoritv — and 
"  that  our  Lord,  in  reproving  the  churches  of  Alia, 
'•  does  not  commmd  any  feparation  of  individuals  in 
44  cafe  the  greater  part  in  any  church  might  not  return 
•'  to  their  duty." 

With  refpeft  to  each  of  thefe  inftances,  I  anfwer,  that 
there  is  not  one  of  thera  parallel  to  my  fituation.  Thefe 
churches,  with  all  their  declenlions  and  corruptions, 
were  Itill  churches  of  Ctarilt,  apoltoUc^Uy  onitituied, 
and  the  bulk  of  them  real,  though  cenlurable  faints. 
Co'ifequently,  when  their  errors  would  be  laid  before 
them,  Uiey  would  unite  in  correcting  them.  But  the 
matter  is  widely  different  with  r  foect  to  a  church  nei- 
ther upon  the  apoftolical  model,  nor  conllituted  of  mem- 


U9 

bers  like  thofe  of  the  apoftolical  churches.  As  to  the 
churches  of  Galatia,  there  was  no  room  to  give  any  fitch 
command.  The  apoftie  lays,  Gal.  v.  10.  "  1  have  con- 
fidence in  you,  through  the  Lord  Jefus,  that  you  will  be 
not  e  othcrwifc  minded."  If  he  had  fuch  an  opinion  of 
them,  and  believed  that  they  would  comply  with  his  in- 
junctions, where  would  have  been  the  propriety  of  giv- 
ing a  command  of  feparation  to  the  few,  in  cafe  of  the 
difobedience  of  the  immy  >  The  error  of  the  judaizing 
teachers,  had  indeed  infefted  the  body,  fo  that  the  apo- 
ftie found  it  neceffary  to  exprefs  his  doubt  of  them  *  ; 
but  he  had  confidence  that  they  would  return  to  the 
truth  when  he  called  them  to  it.  Nay,  he  fuppofeth 
the  whole  matter  to  arife  from  a  very  few  j  "  but  he 
that  tn.ubleth  you.  (hall  bear  his  judgment,  whofoever 
he  be"  "  I  would  they  were  even  cut  off  that  trou- 
ble you."  "  A  little  leaven  leaveneth  the  whole  lump." 
Here  he  counts  upon  the  allegiance  of  the  great  bulk 
of  the  members  of  the  churches,  and  even  intimates  his 
wifh,  that  the  authors  of  this  falfe  dodlrine  fhould  be 
cut  off.  In  what,  then,  does  this  countenance  the  re- 
maining in  a  corrupt  church  ?  Nay,  it  is  direclly  againft 
it.  The  apoftie  knew  that  the  greateft  part  of  them 
would  return  to  the  truth,  therefore  could  not  fuppofe 
it  neceffary  to  advife  individuals  to  feparate  upon  the 
fuppofition  that  it  would  be  otherwife.  But  the  few 
that  fpread  this  doclrine,  he  advifes  to  be  cut  off.  This 
fhews  us  what  vie  fhould  do  with  thofe  who  trouble  a 
church  with  falfe  doctrines.  They  are  not,  out  of  falfe 
lenity,  to  be  fi.ffered  to  remain  and  corrupt  the  body, 
but  removed  as  morbid  members. 

This  objection  is  entirely  founded  upon  an  improper 
conception  of  the  nature  of  a  church  of  Chrifl.  judging 
of  it  as  a  worldly  fociety.  in  which  the  majority  is  fup- 
pofed  to  be  the  whole,  and  is  enabled  to  direct  all  its 
proceedings.  But  it  is  rot  numbers,  but  the  obedient, 
that  conftitues  the  church,  whether  they  be  the  majo- 
rity or  minority.     Had  all  the  members  in  any  one   of 

*  Even  this  doubtinc  (hews  what  he  formeily  took  them 
to  be,  when  organized  as  a  church. 


120 

the  Galatian  churches,  except  two  or  three,  refolved  to 
retain  their  error,  in  contempt  of  the  apoftolic  authori- 
ty, to  tliefe  two  or  three  obedient  difciples  the  apolHe's 
direction  was  (till  given,  "  I  would  that  they  were  cut 
off  that  trouble  you." — Obedience  is  the  teft  of  difci- 
plefliip.  Had  the  majority  of  any  of  thefe  churches  re- 
futed to  obey,  the  obedient  few  were  bound  to  "  cut 
off"  the  difobedient  many.  Thofe  few,  go  where  they 
would,  were  ftill  the  church. 

Indeed  if  it  be  a  duty  to  "  cut  off"  one  or  a  few  dis- 
orderly and  troublefome  members,  it  will  ftill  be  more 
fo  with  refpeel  to  many.  There  is  not  one  argument 
why  three  thouiand  mould  cut  off  three,  which  will  not 
prove  that  three  lhould  cut  off  three  thoufand,  with  an 
Bcceffion  of  ftrength  proportioned  to  the  increafe  of 
numbers.  "  If  a  little  leaven  leaveneth  the  whole 
lump,"  if  not  purged  out,  there  ftill  is  greater  reafon  to 
dread,  that  the  leavened  mafs  will  foon  infect  a  few  par- 
ticles. If  a  whole  church  is  in  danger  from  one,  two, 
or  three  ;  one,  two,  or  three  mult  be  in  much  greater 
danger  from  a  corrupt  body.  What  is  the  reafon  of 
cutting  off  one  diloiderly  nicnber  ?  Is  it  not  left  he 
bring  a  fcandal  upon  the  religion  of  Chrift  j  be  a  Hum- 
bling block,  to  weak  Chriftians  ;  infect  the  body  5  be- 
come an  offence  to  unbelievers  j  and  to  reclaim  the  in- 
dividual. Each  of  thefe  renfons  will  derive  additional 
ftrength  when  applied  to  numbers. 

The  fame  reafoning  will  hold  good  with  refpect  to 
the  church  of  Corinth,  and  the  churches  of  Afia.  The 
apoltle  addreflVd  the  Corinthians  as '"faints,  farctified  in 
Chrift  Jefus  j"  and  every  where  through  his  epiltle 
confiders  them  as  true  believers,  though  in  many  re- 
fpecls  greatly  to  blame.  How,  then,  could  he  fuppofe 
that  they  would  not  obey  him  ?  This  would  have  been 
as  if  the  king  would  lend  an  order  to  the  houfe  of  com- 
mons to  try  one  of  their  members  for  fome  improper 
language  or  conduct,  at  the  fame  time  applauding  the 
members  for  their  fidelity  and  zeal,  and  then  add,  "  yet 
if  a  majority  unite  to  fcreen  the  offender,  let  the  faith- 
ful minority  proteft."     How   incongruous  would  fuch 


121 

language  be  >  Yet  not  more  fo  than  what  fuch  ol.jtdois 
would  expedt  from  the  apoftle.  After  all,  I  will  lup- 
pofe  that  the  whole  church  at  Covinth  had  taken  part 
with  the  inceftuous  perfon  againft  the  apoftle,  except 
one,  two-,  or  three,  ftill  it  would  have  been  the  duty  of 
fuch  to  have  withdrawn  from  the  diforderly  fociety, 
which  no  more  deferved  the  name  of  a  church  of  Chrift, 
than  a  congregation  ot  Muffelmen.  The  few  that  obey- 
ed the  apoftle  were  the  church,  and  to  them  the  com- 
mand was  given,  i  Cor.  v.  4.  4fc  In  the  name  of  our 
Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  when  ye  are  gathered  together,  and 
my  fpirit,  with  the  power  of  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  to 
deliver  fuch  an  one,"  &c.  The  offender,  and  all  who 
fided  with  him,  were  to  be  removed  as  diforderly  bre- 
thren. The  farce  may  be  faid  as  to  the  cafe  of  the  Afia- 
tic  churches.  To  the  very  worft  of  them  Chrift  faid, 
"  As  many  as  I  love  I  rebuke  and  cbaften."  They 
were  much  to  blame,  but  with  all  their  faults,  they 
were  true  churches  of  Chrift.  Nay,  the  very  accufa- 
tions  Chrift  alleged  againft  them,  not  only  fhews  the 
bulk  of  them  to  be  faints,  but  proves  the  neceffity  of 
Dure  communion,  and  of  cutting  off  impure  members. 
He  blames  fome  of  them  for  having  the  propagators  of 
falfe  doctrines  among  them.  This  fhews  that  a  church 
is  to  purge  out  the  old  leaven,  and  become  a  new  lump. 
And  if  he  blames  them,  for  having  a  few  falfe  teachers 
among  them,  how  much  more  has  he  had  occafion  to 
blame  me,  for  continuing  fo  long  with  a  corrupt  body  ? 
With  what  propriety,  then,  can  a  Chriftian  allege  the 
ilate  of  thefe  churches  to  juftify  their  continuance  in 
corrupt  focieties  ?  With  what  face  can  any  church  al- 
lege this,  to  juftify  impure  communion  ?  If  thefe  apo- 
ftolical  churches  had  any  improper  member  amon^  them, 
they  are  not  praifed  5  they  are  not  held  excufable  ;  they 
are  feverely  reprimanded  for  it 

2.  Another  objection  is,  u  that  I  give  up  an  import- 
"  ant  ftation.  I  cowardly  defert  the  field  of  battle, 
"  and  in  all  probability  deprive  myfelf  for  ever  of  an 
"  opportunity  of  preaching  the  gofpel.  Now  Paul  fays, 
**  Woe  unto  me,  if  I  preach  not  the  gofpel.'  Chrift 
"  fays, *  The  harveft  is  plenteous  and  the  labourers  few.' 
L 


12* 

M  It  rauft  then  be  highly  improper  to  leave  a  ripe  har- 
w  velt  without  labourers  to  reap  it." 

What  is  the  amount  of  this  objection  ?  It  is,  "  Do  evil 
that  good  may  come."  If  I  have  (hewn  that  fuch  a 
connexion  is  finful,  no  fuppofed  advantages  refulting  to 
religion  from  it  (hould  have  the  fmallcit  weight,  becaufe 
they  are  nothing  in  reality.  What  good  could  1  do  in 
any  fituation  on  earth,  without  God's  bleffing  upon  my 
labours  ?  And  is  it  fuppofable  that  I  am  likely  to  have 
this  bleffing,  when  I  refufe  to  obey  him  ?  Before  my  at- 
tention was  turned  to  this  fubjecl,  when  my  views  were 
not  fo  clear,  God  might  have  partially  blefled  my 
labours.  But  I  could  no  longer  look  for  a  bleffing,  nor 
with  a  good  confcience  preach  the  gofpel  at  all,  while 
confcious  that  1  was  not  complying  with  his  will.  "  I 
leave  an  important  fituation."  What  fort  of  language 
in  the  mouth  of  a  Christian  ?  If  I  had  an  opportunity  of 
preaching  the  gofpel  in  every  parilh  in  the  lrland,  could 
I  of  myfelf  call  one  (Inner  to  repentance  ?  A  ftation  is 
only  important  as  there  may  be  the  probability  of  do- 
ing good,  and  I  can  fee  no  probability  of  this,  as  long 
as  we  live  in  the  wilful  neglect,  or  the  breach  of  the 
leaft  part  of  the  known  will  of  God.  Ah  !  friends,  I 
am  afraid  if  we  fearch  our  hearts  to  the  bottom,  the 
real  motive  of  remaining  in  corrupt  churches,  is  rather 
the  importance  of  it  to  our  own  temporal  intereft,  than 
a  concern  lelt  the  work  of  the  Lord  fliould  ftand  un- 
done. "  Sirs,  ye  know  that  by  this  craft  we  b^e  our 
gain."  But  "  I  am  running  as  a  coward,  out  of  the  field 
of  battle."  No,  I  am  only  repairing  to  the  liandard  of 
say  captain,  and  deferting  his  enemies.  I  am  only  put- 
ting myfelf  in  a  fituation  in  which  1  can  fight  without 
reftraint,  and  whether  I  am  to  be  an  officer  or  a  private, 
mud  be  left  to  my  general,  who  employs  every  man  in 
the  fituation  that  fuits  him  bell,  and  in  which  he  can 
render  the  moft  efiecluU  fervice.  But  "  is  it  not  a  fin 
for  me  to  put  myfelf  out  of  a  condition  to  preach  the 
gofpel  ?"  Yes,  if  I  would  give  up  preaching  the  gofpel 
for  the  moft  fplendid  throne  in  Europe,  I  would  be  un- 
worthy of  opening  my  mouth  to  proclaim  the  glad  tid- 
ings of  falvation.     If  I  would  quit  my   ftation  for  the 


123 

fake  of  a  little  more  of  the  unrighteous  mammon,  I  would 
be  inexcufable.  If  I  would  quit  preaching  for  fear  of 
man,  "  woe  would  be  upon  me."  But  if  i  quit  a  fta- 
tion  by  the  command  of  my  general,  I  am  not  to  blame. 

But  u  the  harveft  is  great,  and  the  labourers  are  few." 
True,  very  true  ;  and  what  is  the  confequence  ?  Is  it 
that  I  muft  tranfgrefs  the  orders  of  Chrift  to  reap  the 
harveft  ?  Is  there  no  way  of  obeying  one  command, 
without  breaking  another  >  Put  the  objection  into  words, 
and  it  will  run  thus  :  "  O  Lord,  thou  haft  a  great  har- 
M  veil  and  few  to  reap  it  •,  I  am  an  aclive  young  labour- 
*'  er,  but  I  cannot  ferve  thee  unlefs  thou  allowed  me  to 
"  break  one  of  thy  commandments.  It  is  but  a  little 
"  one,  and  it  is  much  better  for  thee  to  give  me  this 
"  liberty,  than  to  want  my  fervices,  for  thou  canft  not 
*'  do  well  without  me.  Thou  muft  either  take  me  on 
•'  thefe  terms,  or  thou  muft  lofe  thy  grain  ?"  Were  I 
to  reafon  and  acl:  thus,  the  Lord  of  the  harveft  could 
foon  lay  me  afide,  and  let  me  fee,  he  could  have  the 
work  done  without  me.  It  is  for  us  to  do  what  is  duty, 
and  leave  events  to  God.  If  he  has  any  work  to  do  at 
prefent  in  Ireland,  I  am  fure  I  am  taking  the  way  to  do 
it.  If  he  has  work  to  do,  who  is  he  moft  likely  to  era- 
ploy  as  his  inftruments  ?  Will  he  let  me  ftand  idle  in 
the  market  place,  and  employ  others  to  ferve  him, 
whofe  fole  object  is  to  ferve  themfelves  ?  If  it  be  my 
fupreme  delight  to  win  fouls  to  Chrift,  I  do  not  think  I 
fhall  be  difappointed.  If  it  be  in  any  meafure  my  meat 
and  drink  to  do  his  will,  it  is  not  likely  he  will  refufe 
to  give  me  employment.  "  And  whatever  we  afk  we 
receive  of  him,  becaufe  we  keep  his  commandments,  and 
do  thofe  things  that  are  pleafing  in  his  fight."  "  He 
that  loveth  me,  keepeth  my  commandments."  "  Fol- 
low me,  and  I  will  make  you  fifhers  of  men."  "  Ye 
are  my  friends,  if  ye  do  whatfoever  I  command  you." 
."  And  why  call  ye  me  Lord,  Lord,  and  do  not  the 
things  which  1  fay." 

3.  No  argument  hath  been  more  frequently  ufed  to 
reconcile  me  to  the  fynod,  than  "  the  duty  I  owe  my 
"  family.     "  He  that  provideth  not  foi  his  own,  efpe* 


1'24 

'*  cially  for  thofe  of  his  own  houfehold,  hath  denied  the 
"  failh,  and  is  worfe  than  an  infidel."  '  I  acknowlege 
the  obligation  of  this  fcripture  in  'ts  fuller!  extent. 
hit  am  I  obliged  to  neglect  one  dutjkby  attending  to 
another  '  1  am  to  provide  lor  my  famuy  •,  but  will  any 
fay,  1  fliould  rob  and  murder  to  fupport  them  ?  I  am 
to  provide,  but  it  is  things  that  are  lawful.  I  am  not 
to  fupport  them  at  the  ex  pence  of  a  good  conference. 
It  1  cannot  truft  my  family  upon  God,  how  will  I  truft 
hirn  with  my  fdul  ?  He  hath  not  only  laid,  u  He  that 
provideth  not,"  &c.  but  he  hath  alfo  faid,  "  Setk  ye 
firit  the  kingdom  of  God  and  his  righteoufnefs,  and  all 
thefe  things  ihall  be  added  unto  you."  I  muft  either 
renounce  the  6th  chap,  of  Matthew,  or  I  muft  do  duty, 
and  truft  myfelfand  family  to  him  who  feedeth  the 
fowls  of  the  air,  and  clothes  the  lilies  of  the  field.  He 
that  feedeth  his  enemies  will  not  fuffer  his  friends  to 
ftarve.  With  what  confeience  could  I  prefs  others  to 
truft  in  providence,  when  I  diftrufted  him  myfclf  ? 
When  I  read  the  hiftory  of  Ariftides,  the  Athenian,  and 
many  other  pagan  fages,  who  fcorned  riches  for  earthly 
fume,  I  am  a(hamed  that  the  glories  of  heaven,  and  the 
love  of  Jefus,  fliould  have  a  flighter  impreffion  upon  me. 
Cyrus  was  fed  upon  brown  bread  and  creffes,  to  fit  him 
for  a  confummate  general ;  and  fhall  I  think  it  a 
grievance  to  fubmit  to  that  difcipline,  to  enable  me  more 
iuccefsfully  to  fight  the  battles  of  my  Lord.  I  muft 
"  endure  hardnefs,  as  a  good  foldier  of  Jefus  Chrift." 
Perhaps  there  never  was  a  general  of  diltinclion,  who 
has  not  undergone  more  hardlhips,  fatigues,  wants,  and 
dangers  to  procure  temporal  glory,  than  I  have  any  pro- 
fpe£r.  of  in  my  more  honourable  warfare.  "  Now  they 
do  it  for  a  corruptible  crown,  but  we  for  an  incor- 
ruptible." A  few  years  hence,  and  all  my  wants  and 
forrows  fhall  be  no  more.  I  will  be  where  "  the  wick- 
er a  ceafe  from  troubling,  and  the  we.iry  are  at  reft." 
41  They  that  are  wife  (hill  fhhie  as  the  brightnefs  of  the 
firmament,  aud  they  that  turn  many  unto  righteoufnefs 
a«.  the  liars  for  ever  and  ever." 


125 

And  muft  I  p^rt  with  all  I  have, 

My  dearefl  Lord  for  Thee  > 
It  is  but  ng]f$,  fmce  thou  halt  done 

Much  more  than  this  for  me. 

Yes,  let  it  go — one  look  from  thee, 
Will  more  than  make  amends 

For  all  the  loflfcs  I  fuftain, 
Of  credit,  riches,  friends. 

Ten  thoufand  worlds,  ten  thoufand  lives, 
How  worthlefs  they  appear, 

Compar'd  with  Thee  lupremely  good, 
Divinely  bright  and  fair  ! 

Saviour  of  fouls  !  could  I  from  Thee 

A  lingle  fmile  obtain, 
Though  deftitute  of  all  things  elfe, 

I'd  glory  in  my  gain. 


FINIS. 


PRINTED  B?  J     RtTCHIi 


